Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

East Timor

Neil Turner: What continuing support to improve civil administration he will offer to East Timor.

Michael Connarty: What continuing support the Government will offer to East Timor.

Mike O'Brien: Before answering the questions, I apologise for the non-attendance of the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), who is in Brussels for a meeting on the Convention on the Future of Europe.
	The United Kingdom has pledged £12 million over the next three years to provide budgetary support for the implementation of East Timor's national development plan. That will help to increase East Timor's capacity to deliver better public services.

Neil Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Few people have suffered more than the East Timorese did during their struggle for independence and self-determination, but their country's future looks bright because of the possibility of oil and gas revenues. However, that income will take time to come on stream, so will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the UK will continue to fund East Timor until then?

Mike O'Brien: It is certainly true that East Timor's future is potentially very bright, given its oil and gas reserves. At the donor conference in May 2002, the UK—which pledged £30 million—and other donors pledged a total of $440 million to East Timor for the next three years. We believe that that is sufficient to meet East Timor's funding gap before it can expect oil and gas revenues from the Timor gap to come on stream in 2005–06.

Mr. Speaker: Michael Connarty is not here. I call the next question.

World Trade

Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on post-Doha world trade liberalisation.

Denis MacShane: World Trade Organisation Trade Ministers agreed an ambitious negotiating agenda at Doha last November. Talks on that are now getting under way, but much work still needs to be done to complete the Doha round.

Phil Hope: Last week, like many hon. Members, I met constituents who are concerned that if free trade is to work, it must work for the world's poor, and not only for the benefit of the world's richest countries. Linked to that issue is my concern about the steel industry—there is a steelworks in my constituency, and I know that steel is represented in my hon. Friend's constituency. The impact of the United States' tariffs on imported steel is punishing our constituents and steel producers throughout the world. Can he assure me that the Government are doing all that they can to make the Doha development agenda a reality for the world's poor, and that we are taking firm action to ensure that the United States lifts those steel tariffs, which are illegal and unacceptable?

Denis MacShane: I agree with my hon. Friend. Last Wednesday's trade justice lobby was a wonderful carnival that showed the best of Britain wanting a fairer world. The Government can be proud of the fact that of the major G8 countries, this country is taking the lead in arguing against agriculture and steel protection, and in increasing overseas aid.
	My hon. Friend is right about steel, which is of profound concern to my Rotherham constituents. It was mainly steelworkers' presence in Seattle during the anti-globalisation movement's demonstration against the WTO that secured them their wish for protectionist measures, which do grave harm to working people in steel industries around the world. The Government have taken up the matter with the United States and talks are continuing. The European Union, too, has fashioned a robust response.

Peter Tapsell: Do the Government accept that since Doha the momentum towards liberal world trade, which has underpinned the prosperity of the world for the past 50 years, has come under threat, especially from the unilateral decision of the United States to impose tariffs on steel, which is all too reminiscent of the Smoot-Hawley trade tariff Act of June 1930, which precipitated the world depression? Will the British Government draw that—[Interruption.]—that sad example to the attention of America's President and Congress?

Denis MacShane: There was some levity at the fact that the hon. Gentleman clearly remembers the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, but he is right—they were a disaster imposed by a reactionary right-wing Administration. It has always been reactionary right-wing administrations that tend to go in for protectionist measures. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] That is why Europe is concerned about forms of protection, including the farm subsidies Bill that has just been introduced by the US Administration—with, alas, the support of Democratic senators. We continue to argue against all such measures, but the House should not forget that the United States remains a huge importer and a great trading nation. Finally, when I talk about reactionary right-wingers, I am speaking about Conservative Front Benchers.

Jim Knight: US protectionism as expressed through steel sanctions and the Farm Act is clearly disappointing and regrettable. Despite that, will my hon. Friend continue to press the United States to make positive proposals consistent with its undertakings at Doha?

Denis MacShane: That is precisely what the Prime Minister will be doing in Canada later this week. We should acknowledge the doubling of aid to $10 billion that President Bush brought to the table at Monterrey earlier this year. The Government are committed to open trade, investment and creating jobs in the third world, where they are needed. It is by breaking down protectionist barriers, however they are put in place, that that is best achieved.

Zimbabwe

Ian Liddell-Grainger: If he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe.

Barbara Follett: What recent discussions he has had with Commonwealth colleagues on Zimbabwe.

Andrew Miller: What recent discussions he has had with other Commonwealth Governments about Zimbabwe.

Jack Straw: Let me begin by condemning the extraordinary and reprehensible decision of ZANU-PF to order farmers in Zimbabwe to stop farming and to drive them and their workers off the land, at a time when the people of Zimbabwe face a level of starvation unparalleled in their recent history, most of which is due not to drought, but to deliberate decisions of the Mugabe regime. Zimbabwe's only way back from disaster is through the restoration of the rule of law, an end to political violence, an end to the intimidation and arrest of journalists and the free press, a return to democratic legitimacy, and the adoption of credible economic policies.
	Our approach to Zimbabwe has been to create and sustain an effective international coalition. All along, ZANU-PF has been desperate to present itself as a colonial victim of the United Kingdom. In contrast, ZANU-PF is now set against the whole of the international community. We have worked closely with the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth and others. The EU has imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on 20 leading members of ZANU-PF, and an arms embargo. EU applicant states, the United States, Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland have imposed similar measures. The Commonwealth has suspended Zimbabwe from its councils.
	We welcome recent efforts by the Governments of South Africa and Nigeria to promote reconciliation in Zimbabwe, and we deplore the recent decision by ZANU-PF to pull out of talks with the Movement for Democratic Change.
	I and my ministerial colleagues keep in close contact with Commonwealth partners on Zimbabwe. My most recent such meeting was last week, on 20 June, with South African Foreign Minister Zuma.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the Secretary of State for that comprehensive set of answers. With the G8 summit coming up, what will the right hon. Gentleman be saying to the G8? Will he be able to pressurise the group into making firm commitments to sort out the situation in Zimbabwe and to make sure that President Mugabe realises just what the feeling of the international community is? It is all very well going round and round the bush, but we must stop the situation before there is a disaster.

Jack Straw: Because I am not a Head of Government, I shall not be attending the Heads of Government meeting of the G8 that is coming up. However, the matter was discussed at the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting two weeks ago, and there is overwhelming opposition to what has been happening in Zimbabwe, and a determination on the part of the international community, which includes the European Union, the United States, and as far as the G8 is concerned, also Russia and Japan, and many other nations, including those of the Commonwealth African group, to see effective action taken against Zimbabwe. I understand the frustration and anger felt in all quarters about what has happened in Zimbabwe—a man-made tragedy, brought on by Mugabe—but I also ask the House to appreciate that we must work collectively with our international partners, if we are to be effective in dealing with Mugabe.

Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and for the work that he is doing on the issue. Will he share with the House his assessment of the effect that EU sanctions are having in Zimbabwe, particularly in the light of Mr. Mugabe's presence in Rome?

Jack Straw: There is no doubt that the travel sanctions taken against Mr. Mugabe and 19 other members of the ZANU-PF regime have been both highly disruptive and humiliating to that regime. That is evidenced by some strident criticism made recently by none other than one of Mr. Mugabe's former henchmen, Mr. Andrew Ndlovu, the secretary of the Zimbabwe National War Veterans Association, who criticised Mr. Mugabe for trying to get out of the so-called smart sanctions
	"to enable them to travel all over the world".
	I should also explain to my hon. Friend that it was always acknowledged in the EU common position, as it has been by the United States, that sanctions on the travel of regimes such as that of Mugabe are qualified by our international treaty obligations. It is for that reason that the United States had to admit Mr. Mugabe to a United Nations conference and that European nations have had to admit representatives of the ZANU-PF regime to international conferences inside the European Union. None the less, the sanctions are proving effective.

Andrew Miller: A week ago on Sunday, I had the privilege to be in Manchester at a business awards ceremony for the Asian community. In particular, British citizens who came here from Uganda brought to my attention the problems that they face. The event was a great celebration of the contribution that that community, among others, has made to British society.
	One business man raised with me his hope that the Foreign Secretary will use the opportunity of the Commonwealth games in a couple of weeks' time to meet as many visiting Heads of Government and leading politicians as possible, so as to reinforce the message to Zimbabwe that its actions are intolerable and that the whole Commonwealth will no longer stand for its activities.

Jack Straw: I shall certainly do that. Of course, it is a matter of record that it was a decision taken by Prime Minister Howard of Australia, President Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Mbeki of South Africa that led to the suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth because of the way in which it had rigged the elections in March.

Hugo Swire: Given the fact that the BBC World Service is the leading international broadcaster in Zimbabwe, providing the Zimbabwean people with free and independent news at a time when press freedom has been so curtailed, will the Foreign Secretary lend his weight to ensuring a realistic funding settlement in the imminent spending review?

Jack Straw: Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman—I am very grateful for the question; more questions like it would be only too gratefully received as we reach conclusions on the spending review—that I shall certainly be doing exactly what he describes, as I shall in respect of the British Council and the Foreign Office's main budget.

Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the whole House is delighted.
	Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the allegations that much of the land that has been seized by Mugabe's thugs has been given to his cronies and members of his family? If that is true, has he made specific representations on that point?

Jack Straw: Yes to both questions. That issue may offer a large explanation of why a country that is naturally rich and that once supplied agricultural produce to the whole of southern Africa can now produce only 850,000 tonnes of cereal, as opposed to a requirement of 2.7 million tonnes. The land has not even been handed over to ordinary black farmers, but to Mugabe's henchpeople. It includes 300,000 acres of prime land seized from commercial farmers and handed out to Mugabe's closest allies, including 10 Cabinet Ministers, seven Members of Parliament and Mugabe's brother in law, the aptly named Reward Marufe.

Roger Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as the Commonwealth, the European Union has a very important continuing role to play in relation to Zimbabwe, and that through its arms embargo, freeze on assets and travel restrictions, it should continue to flex its muscles in response to the political violence and human rights violations there? What discussions has he had with his EU counterparts in relation to Zimbabwe and are any further targeted sanctions planned in response to the recent deterioration in human rights? What will be the objectives of those sanctions and the EU's common foreign and security policy in relation to Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: The objective of the sanctions, as of the suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth, is to secure one end: the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and economic stability to that country, and at the same time to ensure that any such sanctions do not penalise the poor people of Zimbabwe. The issue is continually discussed with my European Union colleagues, and the overall question of the sanctions that have been taken and the common position—as it is called by the European Union—will be reviewed by the General Affairs Council at its meeting in late July.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Zimbabwe under President Mugabe is a country in free-fall in which ordinary citizens suffer the most? Is he aware that inflation is running at 112 per cent., that two thirds of the population are unemployed, that foreign direct investment has fallen from $430 million in 1998 to $4 million in 2001, and that, since 1998, 500,000 people have died as a result of contracting HIV?
	Is the Foreign Secretary aware that production of maize is 77 per cent. less than it was two years ago? In a country that was the granary of southern Africa, farmers are now forbidden by law to work their land when there is a threat of massive food shortages. Is this not truly the theatre of the absurd?
	May I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider this question on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? If events in Zimbabwe conspire to create a massive refugee problem, will the United Kingdom honour not only its legal, but its moral obligations towards the people of Zimbabwe?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would expect that the next time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks a question, it will be shorter than that.

Jack Straw: It would be absurd, but for the fact that it is entirely deliberate, and we need to be aware of that. This is a natural consequence of deliberate policies embarked upon by Mugabe—rationally, but amorally and wrongly.
	On refugees, the Government stand ready, as we always have done, to meet our full obligations under the 1951 convention. I just say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: the countries that will principally suffer from refugees from Zimbabwe in future, as they already have, are those that border Zimbabwe. The crisis has its epicentre in Zimbabwe, but it is now moving out to the whole of southern Africa. Yes, the Zimbabwe dollar is in free-fall, but the rand, too, has suffered badly, and hundreds of refugees are streaming across the borders into South Africa, Botswana, Malawi and Zambia.

Michael Ancram: Hon. Members know, and have heard again today, about the depth of the crisis facing Zimbabwe, not least the decision to close more than 2,000 farms within the next 15 days amid terrible food shortages. But what the House really wants to know is what the Government are going to do to change the situation. In the light not only of Mugabe's visit to Rome, but of his visit to New York in May, his wife's visit to Spain to go shopping and his police chief's visit to France in May, does the Secretary of State really believe that Mugabe's henchmen are experiencing the isolation that he talked about, or does he not rather agree with the author of the recent International Crisis Group report, John Prendergast, that the sanctions as they are currently applied are a joke?

Jack Straw: A year ago, President Mugabe expected to be treated, and was treated in capitals around the world, as a legitimate head of state. Today, he is condemned by the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United States. He is increasingly shunned by other African Governments and has been declared by the International Monetary Fund to be in non-co-operation and subject to sanctions and suspensions. That international consensus has come about not least as a result of the painstaking diplomatic activity of the British Government.
	Listen carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says about the matter. As ever, his attitude is discordant not only with Members on this side of the House, but with those on his own side. I have listened to him on the radio. He constantly calls for things to be done—I agree with him about that—but when he is pressed on what should be done, he says, as he did this morning that there has to be
	"an international coalition put together."
	What does he think that we have been doing but putting together an international coalition with the European Union, the Commonwealth, the United States and many other Governments, as well as actively supporting the southern African development consortium?
	The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
	"I think we shouldn't try to do anything on our own".
	So he accepts the fact that there are clear limits on Britain acting by itself. We must have an international consensus, and that is what we have been actively working for over the past year. Since he makes a slightly disobliging point, I point out that it is a matter for debate whether, with his approach to the European Union, he would have accomplished anything like our achievements with the EU.

Michael Ancram: But does not the Foreign Secretary understand that the people of Zimbabwe want to know what will be done to change things, not a definition of the problem? They do not want to know what talks are taking place, but what will improve matters. He told us about the sanctions and claimed that they were clear, unambiguous and unanimous, but he must tell us what they have achieved in changing Mugabe's direction.
	The position is constantly deteriorating, with more torture and abuses of human rights, yet nothing is done. While torture and other flagrant abuses of human rights continue, where is the international coalition about which the Foreign Secretary told us?
	The United States is apparently exploring further measures to ratchet up pressure on Mugabe's regime; what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to increase the pressure? Is not he ashamed that John Prendergast's report went on to state:
	"Britain and the EU talk tough and do nothing"?
	Is not John Prendergast right? When will the Foreign Secretary stop talking and start doing?

Jack Straw: I appreciate the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman experiences in opposition, but his approach does not recommend itself and I suggest that he move away from it. I have listened carefully to him in the past year, and he has made the same point in the same tone. He has never suggested action different from that taken by the Government.
	The right hon. Gentleman went on about the United States. The sanctions that I was able to ensure that the European Union imposed in February are stronger and more extensive than those applied by the United States. For example, the United States has imposed no financial assets freeze. We welcome the fact that it is now considering that. Meanwhile, as I announced to the House, the EU Foreign Affairs Council will review sanctions towards the end of July.

Sub-continent

Peter Luff: What his most recent assessment of the state of relations between India and Pakistan is. [R]

Dari Taylor: What his assessment is of the present situation in Kashmir.

Jack Straw: As I said in my statement to the House on 10 June, the dispute between India and Pakistan is at root a bilateral matter, which can be resolved only by direct dialogue between the parties. However, it is also a dispute with potent international implications. Intense diplomatic efforts by the United Kingdom and the United States, and the steps taken in recent days by the Governments of India and Pakistan to ease tension give grounds for some optimism. None the less, with 1 million men under arms on either side of the line of control in a high state of readiness, the risks of a conflict remain significant.
	The international community remains fully engaged in seeking further de-escalation and encouraging India and Pakistan to work towards a lasting settlement of their differences.

Peter Luff: The Foreign Secretary rightly emphasised the contribution that the international community can make. What are the Government doing to help move Pakistan towards democracy, enable international observers to monitor the situation, and, perhaps above all, encourage the Pakistani authorities to prevent terrorist groups based in Pakistan from launching attacks on India, its people and its Parliament?

Jack Straw: I welcomed the decision of the supreme court of Pakistan that the assumption of power by President Musharraf was legitimate provided that there was a clear pathway to resuming elections by October this year. I also welcome the steps that President Musharraf has taken towards that end; he has kept to the staging posts. We shall do everything that we can to assist Pakistan. We have no reason to believe that monitors will not be admitted to that country.
	I also welcome the fact that the chief election officer for the whole union of India said that foreign observers would be free to visit Jammu and Kashmir to monitor elections there. He said that they would not be officially invited to do that and that they would have to make their own arrangements, but that they would be allowed access to polling stations. He also said that both the national and international media would have free access to polling stations in Jammu and Kashmir. He stated:
	"We are doing this deliberately . . . as they are the best observers".

Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement to the House and I would be grateful to hear whether he has had discussions with the Indian and Pakistani authorities on the three assurances given by General Musharraf. Those assurances, which were warmly welcomed, were to stop terrorism—which my right hon. Friend has mentioned—to stop infiltration and to dismantle terrorist networks. Although it is still early days, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether those assurances are becoming a reality?

Jack Straw: The undertakings given by the Government of Pakistan, and the corresponding diplomatic and military moves made by the Government of India, are a matter of constant discussion between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of those two countries. I last discussed the issue with Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, in a phone call yesterday. The tension would not have reduced had there not been a significant reduction of infiltration across the line of control. The international community obviously looks to President Musharraf fully to meet the undertakings that he has given on further bearing down on the terrorist groups and, in due course, closing the camps. Detailed undertakings were given to Richard Armitage, the United States Deputy Secretary of State, and there will be a great expectation that they will be met.

George Osborne: A recent US Government report stated that the greatest risk of nuclear conflict between the two powers would occur if field commanders on the ground used nuclear weapons without reference to their commanders-in-chief or their Governments. Do the British Government agree with that assessment? What, if anything, can the international community do to address that specific danger?

Jack Straw: I have not heard that particular anxiety expressed. We have worked on the assumption that, were nuclear weapons—appallingly—to be used by either side, it would be only at the behest and decision of the central Governments and leaders concerned. None the less, we remain very concerned about the relatively low nuclear threshold, and about the need for the development by both sides of the kind of highly sophisticated nuclear doctrine and effective fail-safe back-channels of communication that led, over some decades, to the nuclear weapons of the Warsaw pact and NATO never being used, and, in the end, to the profound differences between eastern and western Europe being resolved in a peaceful way.

Keith Vaz: The whole House will welcome the easing of tension between India and Pakistan, and the efforts undertaken by my right hon. Friend. When does he intend to restore the entry clearance operation in Islamabad, Karachi, Mumbai and New Delhi to its full operational strength?

Jack Straw: We keep the issues of travel advice and the visa operation under close review. We have to make different decisions for each of the two countries, because, although they are both parties to the same conflict over Kashmir, I am afraid that the security situation in Pakistan is significantly different from and worse than that in India, because of the terrorist actions that have already taken place against western diplomats, and other threats. We have, however, already restored something of a service. I am fully aware of the difficulties involved, because I, too, have many Indian and Pakistani constituents, and we are working hard—particularly in respect of India—to get back to as near normal a service as we can. So far as Pakistan is concerned, that will take longer.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) has hit the nail on the head, in that, when tension over Kashmir was recently at its height, the real concern was that there appeared to be no established nuclear doctrine, such as there used to be between east and west during the cold war. I know that the Secretary of State has just referred to this issue, but could he expand a little further on what steps can now be taken to ensure that such a doctrine can be established, through both diplomatic and military channels, so that whenever there is a risk of tension rising again, there will be proper safeguards to ensure that the risk can be minimised and that the situation can be reacted to in the most responsible manner?

Jack Straw: One small silver lining that may already have emerged from this conflict is the greater realisation by the Governments of India and Pakistan of the huge international anxiety about the potential of nuclear conflict, and of the fact that the effects of nuclear conflict in India and Pakistan would in no sense be confined to the narrow theatre of war, but would spread across the whole sub-continent and turn the leader or leaders who unleashed the nuclear weapons, and their countries, into international pariahs for generations to come.
	As to discussions, within the limitations set by our own non-proliferation and other treaty obligations, which we take very seriously, we will of course do our best to offer such advice as the Governments of India and Pakistan think appropriate—as, I believe, will other appropriate members of the international community.

Llew Smith: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the most practical way of demonstrating to India and Pakistan that nuclear weapons undermine their security is for Britain to take a lead by ridding ourselves of our own weapons of mass destruction? If he does not agree, can he explain why nuclear weapons are suitable for our security, but not for that of India and Pakistan?

Jack Straw: The difference is that we are signatories to a range of international treaties on the control of nuclear weapons, but neither India nor Pakistan is. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I do not personally believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United Kingdom—[Hon. Members: "You used to."] Yes I did, and I do not. I went on the Aldermaston march when I was 12, and I think that I am entitled to change my view between the ages of 12 and 55. Indeed, I was nearer to 12 than to 55 when I changed it.
	Although I do not subscribe to my hon. Friend's view, I do believe that a first staging post in making the world safer would be for Pakistan and India both to sign up to the non-proliferation treaties.

Jonathan Lincoln Brown

David Cameron: What representations his Department has made to the Omani Government about Jonathan Lincoln Brown; and if he will make a statement.

Mike O'Brien: Our embassy in Muscat has made at least 12 representations to the Omani Government concerning Mr. Lincoln Brown since November 2000. The embassy was instrumental in restoring Mr. Lincoln Brown's right of appeal in December 2001. Although this case is essentially a private legal matter and we cannot interfere in another country's judicial process, we will continue to provide Mr. Lincoln Brown with all the assistance that we properly can.

David Cameron: I am very grateful for that answer. Is the Minister aware that Mr. Lincoln Brown has been stuck in Oman for some 19 months? Could the Minister press the Omani authorities to ensure that Mr. Lincoln Brown is allowed to appeal in the normal way, and that his complaint to the director of public prosecutions in Oman about the manner of his treatment can be dealt with in the normal way? Will the Minister also give me an assurance that the friendly relations that we rightly have with that country will not get in the way of making robust representations on my constituent's behalf?

Mike O'Brien: We have already made robust representations, and I have given the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will continue to do so. We have always taken Mr. Lincoln Brown's case very seriously, and we will continue to do so and to help him. Work on his case has amounted to more than 50 per cent. of the total time dedicated to individual British nationals in Oman. I shall certainly consider both the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, and if he is happy for me to do so I shall write to him about when and how we can make the representations that he considers necessary.

Zimbabwe

Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Zimbabwe.

Denis MacShane: As the Foreign Secretary and many hon. Members have made clear, the political situation in Zimbabwe is lamentable. Elections are stolen, journalists are arrested and there is widespread corruption among the governing elite. This issue will of course be debated today on a motion for the Adjournment—[Hon. Members: "It's an Opposition day"]—but I have confidence that the democratic spirit of the people of Zimbabwe will one day rise up, so that they can return their beautiful land to the commonwealth of free nations. I wonder whether, instead of personalising the issue in terms of Mr. Mugabe, we should work harder to show our support for, and solidarity with, those who want true democracy in that great country.

Tony Cunningham: Does the Minister agree that the pronouncements by the Zimbabwean Government attacking my constituent Brian Donnelly, who is the British high commissioner in Harare, are completely outrageous and totally unacceptable? Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the high commissioner and the staff in Harare, who are doing a superb job?

Denis MacShane: I very much agree and I hope that those points will be made in the debate on the Opposition's motion later today. Our high commissioner has acted in accordance with the highest standards of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office service, and he has the complete support of the Government and, I am sure, the whole House.

Nicholas Winterton: As the Foreign Secretary said earlier, the Government of Mr. Mugabe is destroying Zimbabwe and causing untold misery, starvation and poverty for its people. Many feel that the problems of Kashmir and the middle east are pushing the problems of Zimbabwe on to the back burner, but I have what I think is a unique question on this matter: what thought has been given to using the good offices of the father of modern central southern Africa, Nelson Mandela, in seeking a solution to the problems of Zimbabwe?

Denis MacShane: We are in discussion with South Africa and neighbouring states on this issue. The House and the people of Zimbabwe would be delighted if Mr. Mandela took a direct personal interest. Whether Mugabe would listen to him is another matter.

Angus Robertson: I wish to associate myself with the suggestion about the involvement of former President Mandela as part of the carrot. The Government have rightly been working with European Union partners in a sanctions regime against Mr. Mugabe and his henchmen in ZANU-PF. May I ask what assessment the Government and the EU have made of the effectiveness of targeting ZANU-PF and whether any plans exist to enhance the sanctions regime?

Denis MacShane: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, a year ago Mr. Mugabe was receiving red-carpet treatment around the world. Recently he had to cool his heels for eight hours in the waiting room of an airport in Paris, reading back numbers of Le Monde, because the French Government would not let him into the country. His Foreign Minister was not allowed into Germany to attend his daughter's wedding. Mugabe's bank accounts—when we can find them, because most have been moved offshore—are being seized. A further tightening, or examination, of the sanctions will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of European Foreign Ministers.

Richard Spring: A programme for free and fair elections—which was, of course, ignored—was drawn up by the Southern African Development Community before the presidential elections in Zimbabwe. Does the Minister agree that the programme should apply throughout sub-Saharan Africa and that the terrible political situation in Zimbabwe should be an object lesson to others not to tamper with the democratic political process?

Denis MacShane: Yes.

United States Steel Tariffs

Meg Munn: What his assessment is of the effect of US steel tariffs on world trade.

Denis MacShane: The United Kingdom believes that the United States steel measures are economically unjustified and inconsistent with World Trade Organisation rules. We fully support the European Commission's response. The US measures will increase prices for US steel consumers and decrease trade.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. A recent report from the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, outlines how much the US tariff policy hurts both the poor in the US and the poor of developing countries. Does he agree with me and many who took part in the lobby of Parliament last week by the trade justice movement that the claim by the Indian Trade Minister that the rich countries want the developing countries to remain exporters of only primary products appears correct? Yet only international trade on fair and equitable terms will help the poor in both the developed and developing world to improve their lot.

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why the Government are strong advocates of progress in the Doha development round and of winding down steel but also agricultural protection on both sides of the Atlantic. The only way in which the world can grow and develop is if the tariff barriers are dismantled and trade, investment and job creation are increased.

David Heath: Is not the crude protectionism of the United States steel tariffs compounded by the US Farm Act? Does not that make a nonsense of all the American rhetoric over the years supporting free trade and correctly criticising the common agricultural policy? Has it been brought home to the American Government that there is a real risk of their unilateral actions derailing the whole post-Doha development round? If so, how will the world put back together what should be a process towards free and fair trade?

Denis MacShane: The United States has debated this and I have read commentaries and speeches by politicians and commentators who are highly critical of the measure, which, of course, was supported by Democrat Senators on the Hill. However, we should not forget that the huge trade deficit that the United States runs represents immense imports into America, each of which represents a job for someone around the world. We will keep arguing firmly and strongly for free trade. I invite the Liberal Democrats to ask their friends—particularly those in the anti-globalisation movement who are hostile to trade—to support the Government on this crucial matter.

Rosemary McKenna: I associate myself totally with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). Many UK companies are struggling in this area and have formally applied for product exclusions. What steps have been taken by the Government to assist those companies?

Denis MacShane: I have a direct constituency interest myself, as much of the steel made in Rotherham is exported to the United States. Corus and my steelworker constituents warmly welcome the extraordinary energy shown by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment in their discussions with the US Administration to seek the necessary exemptions for as many British steel products as possible.

Zimbabwe

Henry Bellingham: What recent discussions he has had with the members of the Southern African Development Community concerning Zimbabwe.

Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial colleagues have frequent discussions with their SADC counterparts about Zimbabwe. The most recent was on 20 June, when the Foreign Secretary met the South African Foreign Minister, Dr. Zuma, in London.

Henry Bellingham: Has the Minister seen the recent report by the distinguished journalist Neil Darbyshire on the disastrous situation in Malawi? To what extent is this tragedy partly the result of the dislocation and deliberate ruination of agriculture in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that the time has come to ratchet up the smart sanctions? At the forthcoming European Council of Ministers, will he look at this point, and at extending a ban on Air Zimbabwe, which obviously will not hit the ordinary people of Zimbabwe but will hit Robert Mugabe and his cronies?

Denis MacShane: I am happy to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to take all those points on board. I am not sure if the famine problem in Malawi is related directly to the situation in Zimbabwe. We must continue to talk with our friends in SADC to ensure that as much aid as possible gets through to the people who really need it.

Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that the economic situation and the lack of stability in Zimbabwe is causing tremendous problems for the economy of the whole of southern Africa, and that SADC must be concerned about that? Might not the economics of the situation bring Mugabe and his henchmen to heel in Zimbabwe, forcing them to move forward and return to democracy?

Denis MacShane: Zimbabwe is the most awful lesson for its neighbours. I hope that the whole of Africa, particularly southern Africa and SADC, understands that democracy and an open economy go hand in hand and that the Zimbabwe road is one that no other African country should contemplate taking.

Kashmir

Michael Weir: Whether Kashmiri terrorists are receiving funding from sources in the UK.

Mike O'Brien: We are determined that this country should not be used as a base for supporting terrorism. It is a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 to belong to, or to raise funds for, a proscribed terrorist group. The police investigate all credible allegations of fundraising for such groups and will take action where there is sufficient evidence to do so.

Michael Weir: The Minister will be aware of press reports that two prominent Kashmiri politicians were arrested by the Indian authorities and accused of receiving substantial sums of money through al-Qaeda representatives in the United Kingdom to fund terrorism in Kashmir. Has the Minister made an assessment of whether al-Qaeda is involved in the Kashmiri situation, and has he received any requests from the Indian Government to investigate money coming from the UK to fund such activities?

Mike O'Brien: We are examining with great care various representations that we have received from the Indian Government and will take action where there is sufficient evidence. It is important that we do not simply act on an allegation that funds are coming from this country unless there is sufficient evidence to back it. It is difficult for the police to act on a mere allegation. We are talking to the Indian Government about some of the statements that have been made and hope that where there is sufficient evidence we will be able to take the necessary steps. The police and the prosecuting authorities will also have to make their decisions based on the evidence.

Mohammad Sarwar: Does my hon. Friend agree that the dispute over Kashmir is a source of rising tensions between India and Pakistan? India and Pakistan have had three wars because of this dispute. Will my hon. Friend put pressure on the Governments of India and Pakistan to negotiate and to bring about a peaceful settlement to this dispute?

Mike O'Brien: We have been working with the Indian and Pakistani Governments to set up a process of dialogue between them and to de-escalate the current tensions. The tension between Indian and Pakistan is a bilateral matter that must be resolved by direct dialogue between the parties. We certainly do not believe that war is inevitable, now or in the long term. The problems between India and Pakistan will never be satisfactorily resolved by military means. We want support for cross-border terrorism to stop and a verifiable end to infiltration as the first step towards reducing the current tensions. We want both Governments to talk through the issues that divide them and to talk to the people of Kashmir about how they want to go forward.

John Wilkinson: Is the Minister aware of the extent of public disquiet in the United Kingdom that we may unwittingly be the base for the prosecution and funding of terrorism in other parts of the world, including Kashmir? Is he conscious of the fact that the United Kingdom does not have a good record in this respect, inasmuch as FARC and the ELN in Colombia and Sendero Luminoso in Peru are not proscribed organisations in this country or the European Union? Can Her Majesty's Government be much more vigilant, because the public have become rightly concerned since the emergence of al-Qaeda and the increased terrorist activity in Kashmir?

Mike O'Brien: My recollection of some of what the hon. Gentleman refers to is not quite the same as his. I will double-check my recollection on one of the groups that he mentioned.
	We have proscribed three Kashmiri terrorist groups, and the list of proscribed groups is kept under constant review. It is a matter predominantly for the Home Secretary, in consultation with Foreign Office Ministers and other ministerial colleagues, to take into account the nature and scale of groups' activities and the extent of their presence in the UK. It is a factor in our considerations whether there is an issue in the UK; it is not simply a matter of proscribing an organisation that may be a threat in another country but may not have substantial, or even any, activities in the UK. However, I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point on board, and will write to him about the groups that he mentioned, because I think that he is wrong on one of them.

Gordon Prentice: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in India and Pakistan concerning security along the line of control in Kashmir.

Mike O'Brien: During his visit to Pakistan, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary underlined to President Musharraf the need for Pakistan to take visible, decisive and verifiable steps to seal the line of control, to stop supplies to militant groups, to help restrain the violent actions of those groups and to close the militant training camps on Pakistan's side of the line of control. In his meetings in Delhi with Prime Minister Vajpayee and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, my right hon. Friend stressed that as Pakistan was taking the necessary steps to clamp down on terrorism, India should respond positively.
	Verification that infiltration by terrorists across the line of control has stopped will be a vital element in de-escalating the crisis over Kashmir. Any arrangement on verification would have to be acceptable to both India and Pakistan.

Gordon Prentice: Our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told me two months ago that
	"there may well be a role for observers"—
	along the line of control—
	"better to enforce a proper peace".—[Official Report, 16 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 440.]
	Well, why are we so laid back about this? I want to see the line of control absolutely flooded with UN observers, but the line we constantly hear from the Front Bench is that we cannot make progress unless there is bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan. What exactly is the problem for India in allowing UN observers on the Indian side of the line of control to police the border, if the Indians are concerned, as they must be, about insurgents moving from Pakistan—Azad Kashmir—into Jammu Kashmir?

Mike O'Brien: Perhaps I might gently explain to my hon. Friend, who asks a serious and important question, that if we do not have the consent of both parties to the presence of observers from the UN or elsewhere, it is possible that such observers might be shot at or that their security might be otherwise compromised. It is thus important that, as part of the process of dialogue, we engage with both the Indians and the Pakistanis to see whether there are circumstances in which, given their particular concerns about international observers, those concerns can be remedied. It may well be that Pakistan has always accepted that there should be some international role, but that India has not felt the same way. The circumstances may have altered but they will alter only to a limited extent. We want to ensure that India's response is carried out reasonably and sensibly by dialogue and agreement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Following his helpful reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), has the Minister considered suggesting to both sides that, as a further step to reduce tension, there should be a demilitarised corridor of, say, 50 or 100 miles along the line of control?

Mike O'Brien: That, too, must be part of the process of discussion and dialogue between the two countries. We cannot just impose that sort of thing—it has to be done by discussion and agreement.

Gibraltar

Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the talks between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar.

Jack Straw: As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said in Westminster Hall on 18 June, discussions between the UK and Spain about Gibraltar are continuing, but real difficulties remain to be resolved. I shall be meeting the Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Pique in London for informal discussions tomorrow, 26 June. We intend to hold a further ministerial meeting of the Brussels process before the summer break, if at all possible. Our aim remains an agreement that we can commend to the people of Gibraltar.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome that statement from my right hon. Friend. Is it true that there will be a meeting this week between my right hon. Friend and Spanish officials, and will those matters be discussed? Can we ensure that when the talks end, that is really the end and that the people of Gibraltar can get on with their lives and the sword of uncertainty hanging over Gibraltar will be taken away once and for all?

Jack Straw: If only it were possible to enable the people of Gibraltar—in my hon. Friend's words—to "get on with their lives" simply by bringing those talks to an end; would that it were that straightforward. The reason that the previous Conservative Government decided in 1984 to enter the negotiations—the Brussels process—which included in their terms of reference discussions about sovereignty, was to try to secure a better future between Gibraltar and its neighbour, Spain. Yes, I have made it clear that we stand by the people of Gibraltar; but am I able to secure significant improvements in the daily lives of the people of Gibraltar without securing an agreement? That remains very difficult.

Mr. Speaker: We now go back to Question 14. Before I call the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I remind the House that it is a question, not a statement.

Middle East

Ernie Ross: If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.

Jack Straw: The search for peace in the middle east has suffered many setbacks in recent months. The speech yesterday by President Bush is therefore very welcome. In summary, he called for a final settlement within three years, including
	"two states, living side by side in peace and security".
	He said that there must be an end to terror, and that
	"Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop".
	He went on to say:
	"Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues . . . This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognised borders. We must also resolve questions concerning Jerusalem, the plight and future of Palestinian refugees".
	I recognise that there are some uncomfortable messages in that speech for the Palestinian Authority, but I am glad to note that President Arafat has welcomed the speech.
	On President Arafat's position, we strongly support the call for reforms to the Palestinian Authority and for new elections, as they will be an opportunity for the Palestinian people to decide who will lead them towards a final and peaceful settlement.
	The United Kingdom has long advocated the vision of two states—Israel and Palestine—living side by side in peace and security. We will do all that we can to assist the process now restarted by President Bush. In this new political environment, we look to the Palestinian leadership to act decisively to end the suicide bombings. We look to Israel to end the closure of the occupied territories and its incursions into area A. Both parties have a duty to take up President Bush's initiative—there is no other way forward.

Ernie Ross: I thank my right hon. Friend. I welcome the fact that President Arafat saw the speech last night as a serious effort by the American President to push forward the peace process. If that is to happen, does my right hon. Friend agree that President Arafat's speech in May, in which he called for early elections, should be supported? In that speech, he also said that he wanted the Palestinian judiciary and security system to be reformed, so in that sense he is ahead of the President of the United States of America in calling for that.
	If there are to be free and fair elections, what role will the European Union and the United Kingdom play in them? In particular, will they help to create a climate in which those free and fair elections can take place? If there is to be such a climate, does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be one where the Israeli occupation forces are withdrawn from the Palestinian centres to allow those free and fair elections to take place?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the question and for his subsequent remarks. Yes, we welcomed the speech made by President Arafat in May, and we and the international community now look for its full implementation, so that there can be free and fair elections and a much more legitimate Palestinian Authority.
	As for the action that Israel must take, President Bush was right to call for an end to occupation, but the precondition has to be an end to the terrible suicide bombings that have continued to disrupt and scar the whole of Israel and, in turn, politics in the occupied territories.
	As for the advice and help that we can give, we in the United Kingdom stand ready, with our European partners, to give every assistance that we can to the Palestinian Authority, including with the organisation and monitoring of the elections.

Michael Ancram: May I join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming President Bush's speech not only as a helpful framework in which to take forward the peace process, but as confirmation of the much-needed American engagement in this troubled issue and troubled area?
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in endorsing President Bush's vision of two states living side by side in peace and security. I also strongly support the twin underlying principles: it is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror, and it is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and under occupation. The counterbalancing elements of comprehensive reform within the Palestinian Authority and the obligations on Israel to withdraw fully to the pre-28 September 2000 positions, and, later, to the 1967 boundaries, as well as to halt settlement activity within the occupied territories, are also welcome in view of the prominence that they are given.
	How does the Foreign Secretary now see this framework being advanced—in what order, and within what time scale—and how can balance and fairness be maintained in the process? Does he agree that the basic elements for the resolution of the middle east problem are the removal of fear and the creation of hope and trust? Does not President Bush's statement set out the framework within which, with good will and commitment on both sides, those elements can be found and built on?

Jack Straw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, not least in his last remarks about the removal of fear and the creation of hope and trust. What we must do, in a position in which hope and trust has broken down on both sides and fear is the all-pervasive emotion, is ensure that, through a staged process, we can reach a situation in which both sides—6 million people in Israel, including 1 million Israeli Arabs, and 3.5 million in the occupied territories—can live in peace and security. That is the only way in which they can enjoy a life. There is no other alternative.
	On the length of the process, President Bush set out a time scale of three years. He talked about the possible creation of a transitional state of Palestine, which is an attractive proposition in, as President Bush recognises, appropriate circumstances. In terms of the order in which matters must be dealt with, the first and overwhelming priority is to recognise that the continuation of repeated suicide bombings in Israel, with all the death, destruction and paralysis to normal politics that that secured, must come to an end. The very welcome words of President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority in condemning this suicide bombing must be followed by action.

Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that suicide bombers are the enemies of peace? Has he made representations to the United Nations in relation to permitting the Jenin refugee camp to be transformed in part into a terrorist base where young and older people were trained to kill the maximum number of Israeli citizens possible? Does he agree that it is necessary to stop glamorising terrorism and to face organised suicide bombings head-on if peace is to be given a chance?

Jack Straw: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; there is no glamour to terrorism whatever. It leads not only immediately to death but to a complete undermining of any kind of political process. We must return to the political process, which is why, notwithstanding the despair and fear felt both in Israel and the occupied territories, I greatly welcome the move by President Bush. On my hon. Friend's specific question, I have not raised the matter with the United Nations, but I am happy to consider doing so.

Menzies Campbell: May I apologise and seek to make amends for my earlier excesses? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the United Nations Secretary-General that the issue of who should lead the Palestinian people is one that they, and only they, can decide? Is he disappointed by the absence of any reference in President Bush's speech to a middle east peace conference, which is one of the most cherished proposals of the moderate Arab states whose co-operation in a peace settlement will be essential for success?

Jack Straw: As I said, as far as elections are concerned, they will be an opportunity for the Palestinian people to decide who will lead them towards a final and peaceful settlement. I am very grateful to President Arafat, however, for the constructive approach that he has shown in welcoming the speech. I am afraid that I do not share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's disappointment about the speech, which I believe is very welcome and very positive. It provides the best basis for a middle east peace process that we have seen since the intifada began in September 2000.
	As for an international conference, the United Kingdom Government are in favour of such a conference provided that there is a guarantee in advance of it being successful. There would be nothing but setback for the peace process if we went into an international conference without a clear agenda and without a clear and satisfactory exit from that conference.

Bob Laxton: I share the disappointment with the long-awaited statement from President Bush. However, may I ask what might be a hypothetical question? What will be the view of our Government and of the United States Administration if, in the elections in Palestine, President Arafat is likely to be re-elected? That is a real possibility.

Jack Straw: Our view has never been in doubt. We deal as we find them with the leaders who are elected and, in the cases of dictatorial regimes, with those who are not elected. If President Arafat were re-elected in the Palestinian Authority, we would deal with him.
	We welcome the speech by President Bush and the fact that it has clearly set time lines and, in particular, contains a clear commitment to a settlement based on United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, which is something that the whole House has called for for many years.

Nicholas Soames: I wholly endorse my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary's measured response to the statement and agree with the Foreign Secretary that this long overdue speech provides the best way—indeed, the only way—forward to a peace process. Does the Foreign Secretary agree, however, that the situation in Jordan and Egypt remains difficult to say the least, and that there is very much an increasing imperative for the European Union collectively and for individual nations on their own account to press forward to ensure that the peace process moves ahead?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that there is anxiety in Jordan and Egypt about the continuing instability in the occupied territories and in Israel. However, as President Bush said, the very fact that, after years of antagonism, it was possible to conclude peace treaties between Jordan, Egypt and Israel shows what can be done even out of the despair and darkness of the kind that Israelis and Palestinians are now within. There is hope.
	We continue to give every support that we can to President Mubarak and to King Abdullah of Jordan. I am glad that it is all-party support, and I commend the visit that the shadow Foreign Secretary and Front-Bench spokesperson made to the middle east recently. That included a visit to President Mubarak. We shall work with the parties concerned.
	As to the intervention of the European Union, President Bush made clear references on more than one occasion to the United States Government working with the European Union, Arab states and with what has been called the "quartet"—the European Union, the United States, the United Nations and the Russian Federation—to act together to help to secure an international consensus. That is essential if there is to be an effective peace process.

David Winnick: Is not the most effective way to undermine the terror groups responsible for suicide bombings to do precisely what they least want? We should start the peace process and bring about what should have been brought about years ago—a viable and independent Palestinian state that would have as much right to exist as the state of Israel. Will my right hon. Friend give the pledge today that he will do whatever he can on behalf of the British Government to see that such a state is brought about? The United States will obviously play the leading role in any such peace process.

Jack Straw: I agree, and that is a lesson that we have learned from our experience. Effective and necessarily tough action against the immediate expression of terrorism and terrorist violence has to be taken alongside a political process. That is what we faced in Northern Ireland. I defer to no one in my hatred of terrorism nor in my full support for effective military and security action. However, such action needs to take place alongside a political process so that consent for terrorism among the people from whom it arises is correspondingly reduced. I therefore welcome a number of the messages in the text of President Bush's speech, including those to the Government and people of Israel to do what they must to help to create a "viable, credible Palestinian state."

John Maples: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with President Bush when he says that President Arafat is an impediment to peace and that peace will be successfully negotiated only under new Palestinian leadership?

Jack Straw: As I said, I greatly welcome the speech. Many people are disappointed with President Arafat's record, and those disappointments are shared by this Government, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear. We also made it clear, however, that we deal with the elected leadership of the Palestinian Authority. I have put my view on the record. I welcome the elections and have expressed the hope that they will be free and fair; otherwise they will not be legitimate. However, we shall deal with whoever is elected, as we have in the past.

Tony Clarke: What right has President Bush got to call for any elected leader to be deposed? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is not the view of the British Government? Can he also correct what he said a few moments ago? Having looked carefully at President Bush's speech, I could not find a reference to the word "viable". He used the word "credible", but credible by whose means? Unless Arafat is allowed to rule and the Palestinian Authority can prove itself, what right have we to say that Arafat is not doing that correctly?

Jack Straw: The word "viable" appears in the penultimate paragraph on page 2 of the speech. I shall let my hon. Friend have a copy.
	President Bush did not call for President Arafat to be deposed. He made criticisms and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, and Opposition Members, to read the text and not headlines because the text repays rereading.

Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's measured approach to free and fair elections in Palestine, but I agree with other hon. Members about the nature of what President Bush said. How can America expect to be treated as a neutral mediator when it calls for a democratically elected leader to be set aside?

Jack Straw: The views of the American Administration on President Arafat are based on experience. There have been many disappointments with the Palestinian Authority. I have explained the position of Her Majesty's Government. I recently noted that President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority said that they would have accepted the terms on offer at Camp David and Taba. Had they done so, the history of the past two and half years would have been very different. It was a misjudgment, to put it delicately, for them not to have done so and not to have seized the moment to go for peace then.
	We need a democratic, effective and well run Palestinian Authority. We have made it clear in the EU and the United Kingdom that we stand ready to help to rebuild the Palestinian Authority as well as to continue to provide increasing amounts of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is doing.

Andrew Dismore: While it is for the Palestinians to elect their own leadership, we should bear it in mind that the Peres Government wanted peace and were brought down by terrorism and that the Barak Government and his excellent peace proposals were also brought down by terrorism. Is not President Bush effectively recognising the reality of the politics of the middle east when he says that the Palestinians ought to elect a leadership not tainted by terrorism which is capable of reforming Palestinian institutions if the Israelis—never mind our Government—are to have confidence in the partner put forward by the Palestinians to negotiate a peace treaty with them?

Jack Straw: The whole region stands at a crossroads. I say in particular that the Palestinian community has had a terrible time. I will discuss that matter later this afternoon with Mr. Nabil Sha'ath, the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Palestinian Authority. Who is chosen as a representative is a matter for the Palestinians, not for us. We need a Palestinian Authority that does what it says it will do. It must clearly control its security apparatus, which has to be unambiguously opposed to terrorism. Its single job must be the maintenance of law and order and the bearing down on terrorism within the area of the occupied territories and, I have to say, in respect of Israel as well.

Crispin Blunt: Although I agree with everything that the Foreign Secretary and others have said condemning Palestinian suicide bombers, should we not be asking the Government of Israel to desist from their policy of targeted assassinations of Palestinians? They have killed perhaps hundreds of Palestinians in circumstances—some of which I saw a month ago in the west bank—that appear on the face of it to be a violation of the fourth Geneva convention.

Jack Straw: Yes. We always make representations whenever we think that a member state of the United Nations is transgressing international law.

Oona King: Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about the double standards employed in this debate? I speak as someone from a Jewish family. Is it not strange that Ariel Sharon and others have said that Yasser Arafat is not fit to be leader because he cannot control terrorist groups, whereas Ariel Sharon served under a Jewish Prime Minister who did not merely control a terrorist group, but set up the terrorist group that blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people? Does not that show us that the Jews and the Arabs are the same—that if they are exposed to ethnic cleansing and have no other escape, they will resort to unacceptable violence? Please can we have a reduction in the double standards and get the peace process back on track?

Jack Straw: The United Kingdom Government and, I believe, the international community, have to have one view of terrorism, which is that we are against it and we want the full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1373. I have to deal for now and for the future, rather than for the history. The simple fact is that the suicide bombings that have taken place and are continuing are organised by the most terribly evil people in those terrorist groups, and they are designed as much to deny the Palestinians any effective say over their future as to deny the Israelis any sort of life for themselves. That is why it is imperative that firm action is taken against the suicide bombers by the Palestinian Authority as well as by the Israeli Government. Meanwhile, and alongside that effective security action, we have a political process which, thank God, might now have started following President Bush's speech yesterday.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Point of Order

Kali Mountford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance for Back-Bench Members such as myself who often use the good offices, help and guidance of external organisations such as our local authorities. Yesterday, my local authority and other organisations gave me a great deal of help to prepare for a debate on social care that was due to take place today. However, late last night we found out that the subject for debate was to be changed. What is your view of due notice to the House of such changes if we are to be able to have full, free and fair debates in the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Lady knows, the Speaker has no views. I sympathise with her difficulties, but notice was given and was within the rules of the House. The Opposition have acted properly.

Auctions

Frank Doran: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the sale of goods by auction; and for connected purposes.
	I have had an interest in auctions for most of my adult life, attending my first auction when I was still in my teens. That was in the days before the "Antiques Roadshow" persuaded everyone that their granny's old vase in the attic must be worth a fortune and antiques prices spiralled.
	There is an ancient tradition of auctioning goods in this country, from which has grown an international arts and antiques market worth between £2 billion and £3 billion a year. London is the centre of the international arts market, and more than 90 per cent. of that market is controlled by two companies, Sotheby's and Christie's, which are still thought of as British, but which are both now international companies. That market is probably the least-regulated sector of business in the United Kingdom, and one in which consumer protection is at its weakest.
	The main purpose of my Bill is to deal with the buyers premium. Until 1975, auction houses were fairly simple. Someone who had something to sell would take it to the auction house, and if it was an everyday item—a piece of furniture, some jewellery, or perhaps granny's old vase from the attic—they accepted the house rules and agreed to pay the set commission on the sale price. If it was something grander—an impressionist painting or a Chippendale table—the seller might be in a better bargaining position and could negotiate a more favourable commission rate. If the seller was not happy, he or she could go to another auction house. As far as the buyer was concerned, it was even simpler—a bid was made, and the item was paid for and taken home.
	In 1975, when Sotheby's and Christie's were in some financial difficulty, the directors of Sotheby's introduced the buyers premium. That was a commission charged to the buyer as a straight percentage on the sale price. The commission was set at 10 per cent. Christie's introduced its buyers commission, also at 10 per cent., almost simultaneously.
	The arts and antiques world was in uproar. At a stroke, the purchase price at both companies' auctions of all goods had increased by 10 per cent., plus VAT on the commission. There was a great deal of anger, which led to attempts at boycotts, threats of legal action, and referrals to the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT received complaints about the buyers premium in 1975, 1978 and 1982. On each occasion, no formal investigation was carried out and no report published. All the opposition failed and, in the process, showed the weakness of the UK regulatory regime in this regard. The main ground for complaint was the alleged collusion between the two companies.
	There are a number of serious problems with the buyers premium. First, in return for the premium, no services whatever are provided for buyers. They have the privilege of attending the auction houses for sales, but they had that before the premium. There are catalogues and other services, but those have to be paid for. All the services provided by the auctioneer are charged for separately.
	Secondly, the buyers premium produces a serious conflict of interest for the auction house. The duty of the auctioneer is to obtain the best possible price for the client. Artificially increasing the price to the buyer inevitably leads to a trade-off against the interests of the seller. Most buyers will take into account the extra to be paid in commission, and bid less.
	That is not so much of a problem for the sellers of valuable and important items. They can probably negotiate a lower commission, and for the most important artworks, perhaps even a zero rate. However, for the sellers of more modest items—that includes most of us—there is a real problem. They have to pay the sellers commission, usually 10 per cent., and accept the lower price that purchasers are prepared to pay because of the imposition of the buyers premium.
	An example of how that operates in practice was provided to me by Mr. Peter Walton, who is an art dealer in Buckingham. He has led most of the campaigns against the buyers premium over the past 25 years. On a hammer price of £1,000, with the buyers premium of 17.5 per cent., which is not unusual now, the charge would be £175, plus VAT. The commission on the hammer price to the seller at 15 per cent. in Mr. Walton's typical auction house would produce a figure of £150. Of the hammer price of £1,000, £812 would be returned to the vendor, but the auction house would take £393.62 in Mr. Walton's example. That is a third of the sale price, which would go directly into the pocket of the auctioneers for a premium that did not exist previously. It is a rip-off—a very up-market one, but a rip-off none the less. I shall say a little about the current rates. I mentioned that Sotheby's and Christie's had introduced the rates at 10 per cent. in 1975. Sotheby's now has a buyers premium of 20 per cent. and Christie's rate is 17.5 per cent. The common rate in the rest of the country is between 15 and 20 per cent.
	The most worrying aspect is the continuing evidence of collusion between the two major auction companies, Christie's and Sotheby's. There is evidence of collusion in 1975, when the buyers premium was introduced by both companies at the same rate within weeks of each other. Most of the attempted legal actions and OFT referrals failed for lack of evidence. However, there is now real evidence of long-term collusion between the two companies. That was presented at the trial last year in the USA of Mr. Alfred Taubman, who was chairman and principal shareholder of Sotheby's.
	Mr. Taubman was jailed for a year and fined the equivalent of £5.3 million. He was prosecuted following investigations by USA anti-trust authorities, but also because the chief executive of Christie's, Mr. Davidge, provided evidence that the two companies had been colluding for years over commission and on matters such as the buyers premium. Mr. Davidge gave evidence to save his own skin. The only reason that he was not prosecuted was that he was lucky enough to get in first. That is not a very edifying spectacle for what were previously two of the most up-market of British companies. In America, there are laws to deal with these issues. In this country, the same practices have been in place for a generation and no action has been taken. Consumers remain unprotected.
	My Bill would do two things. First, it would establish that the relationship between a seller of goods and an auctioneer is one of agency. That is what the law is assumed to be at the moment, but the important legal cases in this area were decided before Sotheby's and Christie's made the fundamental change of introducing the buyers premium. Secondly, the Bill would abolish the buyers premium. It would be lawful for auctioneers to charge for services such as publication of catalogues, valuation and so on, but the imposition of a straight commission on buyers would be unlawful because it creates a clear conflict with the duty of an agent to his client.
	The effect of the Bill is not limited to the two big auction houses. It would apply to every auctioneer in the country. Following the decisions of Sotheby's and Christie's in 1975, slowly but surely, the vast majority of auctioneers in this country have introduced the buyers premium. Most had no choice if they were to remain competitive, because their competitor companies were able to cut the sellers premium and take work away from them. There is as little a case for these auction houses to charge the buyers premium as there is for the two larger companies to do so.
	If leave is given for my Bill to be brought in, I hope that it will be the start of the Government's taking a proper and considered look at the way in which auctions are regulated. I am very pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), is present. Yes, the two big auction companies make an important contribution to the economy and standing of this country, but as the court case in America shows, there have been serious deficiencies in the way in which the market has been run. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Doran, Rosemary McKenna, Hugh Bayley, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Chris Bryant, Joan Ruddock, Miss Anne Begg and Ms Dari Taylor.

Auctions

Mr. Frank Doran accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the sale of goods by auction; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 153].

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there has been some unflattering sedentary comment—it was very ill-informed, may I say—from those on the Opposition Front Bench, could some of us register that on this vitally important matter, expertly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), there should be some sort of response under privilege? That is what we are given privilege for. Some of us would like to hear a proper response to the very important matters that he raised, but I would guess that it had better be under privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	State Pension Credit Act 2002
	NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002
	Land at Palace Avenue, Kensington (Acquisition of Freehold) Act 2002.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[15th Allotted Day]

Mental Health

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have selected both amendments in the name of the Prime Minister for the Supply day.

Liam Fox: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses its deep concern at the plight of those who suffer mental ill-health and notes that almost every family will have experience of some form of mental illness; is concerned at the inadequate treatment so many receive, the shortages of staff and beds, the gaps in community provision and the lack of choice; condemns the lack of support and respite for carers, the lack of early intervention with the young and the unmet needs of the elderly; further notes that many vulnerable people with mental health problems are in prison and receiving inadequate medical care; expresses concern at the rise in the suicide rate of those suffering from mental illness; regrets the diversion of mental health funding into other clinical areas; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to act to raise awareness of the scale of mental health problems and to ensure that patients are treated in an appropriate and dignified way.
	There will be much in this debate on which both sides of the House will agree, and some that we will want to debate, but we can begin by recognising that the way in which a society treats those who are least able to play a full role is a measure of how civilised that society is. Sadly, we accept a level of care for people with mental illness that we simply would not accept for many more readily identifiable physical illnesses. If we walked from the House up to the Strand or into the centre of London and saw people, many of whom may have a mental illness, sleeping rough in front of our biggest institutions, most of us would regard that as a policy failure that a humane society should not be willing to tolerate.
	It will come as a surprise to many outside the House, and perhaps to many hon. Members, too, that one in four of us will at some point in our lives suffer from a mental health problem. I doubt whether there is one person in the Chamber who has not experienced the impact of mental ill health on someone in their life, be it a relative, a friend or a colleague.

Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Fox: I have barely started; I shall give way shortly.
	Mental illness is society's unspoken epidemic, and as one of our last social taboos it is too rarely discussed. All too often, people regard it as a weakness and stigmatise those who suffer from it. If we are to diffuse the stigma surrounding mental ill health, we must dispel the ignorance surrounding the whole subject.
	The spectrum of mental ill health is incredibly broad, as hon. Members will know from their constituency work. It encompasses many different groups—the mum with post-natal depression, the dad struck by depression because of a period out of work, and the son or daughter with a behavioural disorder who underperforms academically or is disruptive in the classroom. It is also about college friends who commit suicide, seemingly for no reason, a soldier returning from overseas unable to adjust to the realities of normal life, and, perhaps most commonly, elderly patients slowly being ravaged by the dehumanising erosion of Alzheimer's disease.
	Although the safety of the public must always be at the top of our priorities, we need to move the debate away from an obsession with the mercifully few incidents when someone with a mental illness harms someone else, and remind ourselves that it is in the interests of public safety to ensure that there is adequate and appropriate treatment for all those who need it.

Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate to dump an important debate that was on the Order Paper until last night, and substitute it at the last minute—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for debate.

Liam Fox: I wonder what people outside this House who think that this is a very important issue will make of such an imbecilic intervention.
	Sadly, too many politicians pay more attention to the potential dangers posed by psychiatric patients, and to their compulsory treatment, than to the far more important issue of appropriate treatment for all patients. I hope that the Government have avoided that mistake in the Bill that they are publishing this afternoon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware that on the ground the situation is often bleak, with widespread staff shortages, acute and day bed shortages, wide gaps in community provision and a lack of effective step-down care for those returning to the community. Things are made worse by the knowledge that although funds are earmarked in the health budget, they all too often fail to reach those in need. Cutting the mental health allocation is an easy way of balancing the budget. The mentally ill are the least likely to complain, make a fuss or write to newspapers.
	The evidence that mental health is not considered to be a priority is stark. Buckinghamshire mental health NHS trust has had £1 million that was originally earmarked for mental health diverted into other areas. Half of all GP practices in Cumbria offer counselling to patients in need, but there are plans to axe that £78,000 service. The Avon and Wiltshire mental health partnership trust faces service reductions amounting to £0.5 million. On a smaller scale, but equally important to patients, the acupuncture clinic at the department of psychiatry at North Manchester general hospital is threatened with closure. It costs £60,000 a year to run. As for big organisations, Saneline requires £1 million a year. It deals with more than 1,000 calls a year from distressed people, but is still under threat.
	It is clear that far from being a priority, mental health care is too often an afterthought in today's NHS. The burden falls across our whole society. Our inner cities bear more than their fair share of that burden. People who are homeless or have alcohol or drug addictions frequently have mental health problems. They end up in inner cities, where amid the hustle and bustle of city life they become invisible to those who otherwise might help them. Of course this is not simply an inner-city issue. The crisis in our countryside has led to an increase in mental health problems, such as the well documented tragedy of farming suicides, which touched my constituency in north Somerset when a father and son, whom I knew well, committed suicide.
	The Conservative party has always been at the forefront of mental health reforms. Lord Shaftesbury began to change the perception of mental health problems from a private misfortune to a matter of public concern. He highlighted the atrocious conditions in many London asylums, and changes began, albeit slowly, to occur.
	The increase in asylums and other custodial institutions was such that by 1954 the population of psychiatric hospitals peaked at 152,000. That is more than twice the current prison population. Enoch Powell took the first, decisive step from that model of care. He said that the Mental Health Act 1959 "lit a funeral pyre" beneath the decaying network of asylums. He was at his most eloquent on the subject in 1961, in what has become known as his "water tower speech". He spoke of asylums that stood
	"isolated, majestic, imperious, brooded over by the gigantic water-tower and chimney combined, rising unmistakable and daunting out of the countryside."
	His broad goal was to move treatment of the mentally ill away from remote asylums and into local hospitals closer to the community.
	The development of new drugs meant that the possibility of treating patients in the community slowly became a reality. It began with the findings of the committee that considered mental health. The now Lord Parkinson chaired it at the request of the now Lord Fowler when the Conservatives were in opposition in the 1970s. Policy development culminated in the Mental Health Act 1983 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced.
	Most people accept that it was right in principle to close the old asylums and have patients treated close to or in the community. The concept of care in the community was supported across the political spectrum, although experienced hon. Members might suggest that widespread political consensus sometimes leads to the worst legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) wrote in a letter to The Times in 1998:
	"In an institution, an individual can be monitored 24 hours a day. In the community, reporting and fail-safe mechanisms are necessary if tragedies are to be avoided."
	The suicide rate is increasing again, the family unit is increasingly breaking up, there is homelessness, abuse and the absence of a sense of community in many inner-city areas. Those factors all contribute to the increased prevalence of mental health problems among people of all ages, including, perhaps most worryingly, the young.
	Care in the community has provided many thousands with an opportunity for a quality of life that is far better than the life that they would have experienced inside restrictive institutions. Criticism cannot be laid at the door of the medical, nursing and voluntary staff—the latter are forgotten too often—who have made a Herculean effort in the face of great difficulties. I reject the criticism from some that care in the community was nothing more than the unfortunate or catastrophic meeting of a desire for financial savings with a naive passion for the rights of the individual.
	However, the pendulum swung too far, too fast. Many believe that care in the community was implemented too quickly, and too often with inappropriate patient selection. In too many places there was too little investment in training, finance and related matters. At times there has been too little care, scant support and a form of community that exposed the vulnerable—the public and the patients—to danger. Individuals were sometimes placed in complex urban environments with which they simply could not cope. They lacked understanding of their condition, and their institutionalised background made them unable to deal with the complexities of modern living. When they needed help, their cries went unanswered.

Hilton Dawson: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech the like of which I have never previously heard from him. Is he prepared to acknowledge that the Conservative Government left the Labour Government with an enormous problem, which they have had to tackle?

Liam Fox: We should not get into arguing about who introduced what, and who have been in office for the past five years. The principle of care in the community was correct, but mistakes were made in implementing the policy, both under the Conservative Government and under the current Government.

Claire Ward: Will you say sorry?

Liam Fox: Yes, I would say sorry to patients who have suffered unnecessarily because of the poor implementation of policy—but I must say that I find the hon. Lady's approach of sitting in a debate on a very serious subject making stupid sedentary points rather pathetic.
	We require a balance to be struck that will ensure the most appropriate treatment and environment for patients—a balance in which those who need treatment in a hospital setting can receive it, and in which only those able to cope in the community are placed there. We must accept that achieving that balance is made more difficult under this policy—which is discredited in the minds of the public—because of a series of crimes committed by mentally ill people who had fallen between the gaps or come off their medication.
	I do not need to go through that litany today. As Michael Howlett of the Zito Trust said:
	"People don't just attack people in the street out of the blue. There's always a build-up over weeks or months. These incidents are usually as a result of services breaking down and the danger signs not being spotted."
	The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health published a briefing on acute in-patient care a few weeks ago, which stated:
	"We have yet to develop realistic plans to deliver acute inpatient care which is therapeutic and supports recovery. Unless we develop and implement such plans, nationally and locally, we will see an increasing cycle of decline in acute mental health care, with increasing user dissatisfaction, incidents and inquiries and the loss of high-quality staff—all despite the best efforts of so many committed staff. The situation is little short of a crisis, and has to be addressed now. In some instances the quality of care is so poor as to amount to a basic denial of human rights."
	Incidentally, that briefing describes not the situation five years ago, but the situation now.

Hugh Bayley: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman's party on bringing this issue before the House, and I congratulate him on his speech. My question is about the funding and control of mental health services. The hon. Gentleman has gone on record talking about fees, charges and private insurance for health care. Does he agree, however, that for mental health care that is a dead end? Whatever the failings of our mental health care system, privatised health care systems such as that of the United States are much worse. Does he agree that we must have a state-funded system with a proper framework, such as the national service framework?

Liam Fox: I have stated on the record that we are not looking towards the American system for mental health care or any other type of health care. I am sure that the whole House would agree that it is essential that those who require treatment for mental illness get it free at the point of use, irrespective of their ability to pay. Whether a range of providers could provide that care, funded by the NHS, is an entirely different matter—to which I shall return, giving examples, later.
	When discussing the issue of danger in connection with patients with mental illness, the question we have to ask is: a danger to whom? Events involving just a few stigmatise the many, and can lead others to overlook the danger that some mentally ill people pose to themselves. The case of Ben Silcock is a good example. Hon. Members will remember that he was severely mauled after climbing into the lion enclosure at London zoo while mentally disturbed. It is also worth remembering that the incidence of suicide, particularly in prison, is far higher than the number of cases in which mentally ill patients harm someone else. Sadly, about 1,000 schizophrenic patients in this country commit suicide every year. That is a figure that we should focus much more on.
	It will always be the duty of the Government to protect the public from harm, if necessary by detention or compulsory treatment, but politicians must take care to adopt a balanced approach that does not stigmatise, and thereby worsen the plight of, those who pose no risk to anyone—except, possibly, themselves. I look forward to the Secretary of State outlining some of the measures that the Government are introducing in their draft Bill today. I hope that they will be dramatically different from some of the proposals in the White Paper.
	In a joint statement, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Law Society have warned that they would find proposals too closely based on the White Paper unacceptable:
	"We call upon the Government to halt any further attempt at legislation based on the White Paper 'Reforming the Mental Health Act' and to begin meaningful consultation on a statutory scheme that takes account of mental incapacity on the successful Scottish model."
	The Secretary of State needs to address those reservations.
	The statement goes on to say that the question of resources needs to be considered and that an Act based on the framework of the White Paper
	"would collapse under the weight of its own regulatory framework . . . The proposals would be . . . costly to implement . . . The new Mental Health Review Tribunals alone would require the time of 600 (extra) psychiatrists. It would be impossible to recruit such numbers. Those in post would be diverted from . . . patient care."
	It is well known that reservations were expressed about proposals relating to those with dangerous and severe personality disorders. The statement said:
	"In order to accommodate such a risk, the criteria for compulsion have been so widened that large numbers of patients would find themselves inappropriately placed under . . . the Mental Health Act . . . increased numbers would overwhelm already over-stretched acute ward and community teams. Patient care would suffer and the level of risk would be increased rather than reduced."
	I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would deal with three issues, the first of which relates to compulsory treatment in the community. In what circumstances will a patient receive enforced treatment, particularly medication, in the community? Secondly, if the Government intend to remove the criterion of treatability under the draft legislation, how will patients with personality disorders who are detained be affected? Who will decide which patients can be detained and for how long, and how do we get round the fact that there is no suitable definition of severe personality disorder? Experiments to determine whether patient behaviour can be predicted through case studies have produced extremely poor results, yet predictability of behaviour will be central to the Government's proposals. Thirdly, when is the proposal likely to become law?
	The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) referred to private sector provision. I have been extremely impressed by the way in which other countries that I have visited deal with mental illness. I was especially impressed by a psychiatric hospital in Denmark, which stood in stark contrast to those in the UK that I have visited. I noted the sense of calm, and the profound sense that patients were treated as individuals, and with great dignity.
	Hon. Members may be aware of examples such as the Hotel Magnus Stenbock, in Helsingborg, which is well known in mental health circles. It is a good example of what might be termed a halfway house for those moving between an institutionalised setting and the community. It has 21 single rooms and offers a balance between private and social space. It offers not just structure and crisis accommodation but a place of safety, and develops a sense of community and acceptance. It is run by the RSMH, a multi-million pound organisation of mental health care users that sustains and nurtures self-help care models throughout Sweden.
	Perhaps the most striking comment on that hotel was made by a shopkeeper who runs a nearby store. One might have expected the local population to object to the proximity of such an hotel, but on the contrary. The shopkeeper said:
	"The proximity of the hotel has not had any adverse effects on business, sometimes the general public are a little wary of users, but they see the staff in the shop are not afraid and are treating the hotel residents the same as all the other customers. It makes them more comfortable. We believe everyone has the right to be treated as a human being and at some point in everyone's life we all encounter problems, some more severe than others."
	That is symptomatic of the way in which Scandinavian countries deal with mental illness. They regard it as an illness that is no more to be afraid of than cardiac or respiratory illness; they do not attach to it the stigma that the United Kingdom does. As it involves a private sector organisation, that example shows that such services do not have to be provided by the state.

Andrew Miller: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the first couple of minutes of his speech. The facility that he has just described sounds remarkably similar to the Countess of Chester site, launched by the Secretary of State a couple of months ago, in which £14 million has been invested. Does he recognise that such provision can be made within the framework of the NHS, and is it not a pity that we have had to wait for so long for the end of buildings that were condemned in the 1980s?

Liam Fox: Sadly, we have not seen the end of enough such buildings. The updating of facilities is to be commended, but that is not just a question of changing the bricks and mortar. A cultural problem exists in this country and we need to overcome it, but the stigma attached to mental illness makes it difficult to achieve progress.
	I shall now turn to another hidden scandal in the UK—the situation that pertains in our prisons. Enoch Powell may have lit a funeral pyre beneath mental asylums when his Mental Health Act 1959 began the process of shutting them, but today some 70 per cent. of the prison population have a mental health or substance abuse problem, or both. We once hid our mentally ill in asylums, but we now unwittingly locate far too many of them in our prisons.
	The incidence of mental disorders among the prison population far exceeds that in the population as a whole. It is a troubling thought that, at the beginning of the 21st century, anyone who is mentally ill and has a brush with the law could be subject to inadequate treatment in Dickensian settings in our prisons. Facilities for patients often amount to little more than sick bays with limited primary care cover. The assessment of a prisoner arriving at a prison typically takes five to seven minutes, and is often conducted by a retired GP or a locum with no specialist knowledge of mental health.
	The level of training of staff often does not match the complexity of the conditions with which prisoners present. Prisoners are therefore less likely to have their mental health needs recognised or to receive psychiatric help or treatment, and are at an increased risk of suicide. The number of suicides in 1999 was twice the figure in 1990.
	A report by John Reed, the medical inspector for the inspectorate of prisons, has stated:
	"A period in prison should present an opportunity to detect, diagnose and treat mental illness in a population hard to engage with NHS services. This could bring benefits not only to patients but to the wider community by ensuring continuity of care and reducing the risk of reoffending on release."
	John Reed has also said of prisoners:
	"Many are quietly mad behind their cell door and are not getting any treatment. Care for mentally disordered offenders in prison is a disgrace."
	As a matter of urgency, therefore, the Prison Service needs to consider how to address the mental health needs of the people in its charge. In particular, research is required to determine how much the prison environment impacts on mental health. That may include issues such as overcrowding, confinement in cells and the range of activities available in prison.
	A second problem is that prisoners with mental health problems remain in the Prison Service and are not diverted to the NHS as the Reed report, among others, recommended. It is inappropriate for prisoners with severe mental health illness to be in prison. Sir David Ramsbotham has said:
	"In my view mentally ill prisoners requiring 24-hour nursing care should be in the NHS, not prison."

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that part of the solution lies at the beginning of the process? The police should be trained—they have a good record on the issue in Kent—to pick up early, before a case even goes to court, the fact that a prisoner might be suitable for mental health assessment and sectioning, instead of putting him into the criminal justice system.

Liam Fox: That is greatly preferable, but it is also essential that people who go to prison with an undiagnosed mental illness are not under-treated and then return to the community with a much greater chance of reoffending. That is part of caring for the vulnerable, but it also involves enlightened self-interest for the wider society. Whether patients are in the criminal justice system or not, it is in everybody's interest to ensure that they are properly treated in the right setting, so that they are not released from custody with a treatable condition.
	I have read the draft Bill, and we will examine closely the Government's proposals for a shift from prison to NHS treatment. If my cursory reading is any guide, those proposals will certainly command the support of the Opposition.

John Battle: I remind hon. Members that Armley prison is in my constituency. I do not want to rehash history, but I remember that in 1996 some hon. Members pleaded with the then Government to halt the bed closure programme because it would mean a shift from care in the community to care in custody. That is what has happened. Without going over the past, will the hon. Gentleman be generous enough to acknowledge that for some months we have had 10 pilot mental health in-reach programmes in prisons to address that problem? Is he aware of that fact?

Liam Fox: I am aware of it and I welcome it, but we should treat the matter as one of even greater urgency. I hope that the Secretary of State will outline the proposals in the Bill to do just that; it is something that we have been urging the Government to do. If that is what the Secretary of State confirms this afternoon, he will have our support.
	The Wanless report looked at the costs of mental illness and the potential savings that a better system might bring. Derek Wanless pointed out that MIND had estimated the total cost of mental illness at £37 billion a year, of which £11.8 billion was accounted for by lost employment. In 1995, more than 91 million working days were lost as a result of mental illness. The Home Office estimates that the overall cost of crime is £58 billion a year, and a significant proportion of crime is carried out by those with a mental illness.
	When asked about the cost benefits of better mental health care, Wanless said:
	"It is difficult to estimate the exact value of potential savings, but it does not seem unreasonable to assume that there might be a 5 per cent. reduction in the costs of mental illness and a 2 per cent. reduction in the costs of crime . . . giving a net saving across government as a whole of some £3.1 billion a year."
	The House would do well to take a wider view of costs and benefits.

David Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, much of which I agree with. In respect of prisoners, he referred to the Reed report, which recommended strongly—as have a number of individual inquiries—the break-up of the special hospital system and the development of more regional secure units. Would it be his policy to follow those lines and develop further regional secure provision, with a view to moving prisoners who are wrongly in prison into more appropriate places?

Liam Fox: I could not honestly say that I have come to a fixed view on the best way to provide more appropriate care. There is a need for further research as to how best to manage the transition from the prison setting to a more appropriate setting for the treatment of mental illness. Perhaps the pilots referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) might give us some valuable information.
	We accept that health policies cannot hope to eradicate the problems of an entire society—that vision was shattered after 1948—but what health policies can do is to seek to support those who suffer in what can at times be an atomised and alienating society. That is why the Conservative party has decided to make mental health a central part of our health policy agenda. The issue must become a matter of public concern, not just private misfortune. An enlightened society is one that realises—as they have in many Scandinavian countries—that it is to the benefit of everyone for mental illness to be treated adequately, and, if possible, prevented.
	I give the House this final thought: perhaps we need to bring back one other concept that we seem largely to have forgotten—the concept of sanctuary. We started out with Bedlam, then we had madhouses; Lord Shaftesbury gave us asylums, then we looked to the community. Now we must speak of what all the differing environments ought to provide—a sense of sanctuary.
	Recently I visited a mental health counselling service in Aylesbury, where those involved described their office—particularly movingly, I thought—as a place where patients came to feel safe. That is a good guiding principle.
	Last week I visited the Hillside clubhouse in Holloway. I am ashamed to say that I did not know about the clubhouse network, but I was struck from the moment I went through the door by the fact that those with mental health problems looked on the clubhouse as somewhere they could go to feel safe. It offered them companionship, constructive activity and the chance to go and get a paid job in the community. It supported them without compelling them. Everyone found their own level and progressed at their own pace. It was not somewhere they were forced to go but, equally, it was somewhere that would keep in touch if they stopped coming along. In short, it offered genuine care in a real community, and it was a sanctuary within an ever more complex society.
	Concern about the social welfare of those in society who have no one to speak up for them and often cannot speak for themselves is an essential part of any programme for a truly national party. There can be few groups more vulnerable than those with mental illness. We have decided to make mental health central to our policy not because it is fashionable, and not because we have identified some interest group or section of the population whom we can make politically beholden to us as a consequence. We are not doing it because we see some short-term gain to be had by pretending to interest ourselves in so-called soft social issues for a few months. We are doing it because we believe that it is the right thing to do, and that is what politics ought to be about.

Alan Milburn: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from "illness" to end and insert:
	"notes the decades of under-investment which led to crumbling buildings, demoralised staff and inadequate treatment under the Conservative Government which left many of the most vulnerable in society without the care they need; supports this Government's investment in NHS mental health services to ensure better and faster care for people with mental health problems, including new community teams, more staff, improved acute care and new services for children; supports the full implementation of the Mental Health National Service Framework to ensure national standards are in place for the care and treatment of mental illness; recognises the massive contribution of carers and the Government's action to support them, and commends the Government's 'mind out for mental health' campaign to tackle stigma; and believes that improving mental health services should remain a key Government priority."
	When I became Secretary of State, I said that our top clinical priorities in the national health service should be threefold—to secure improvements in cancer and cardiac services and also in mental health services. These are the clinical priorities set out in the NHS plan. Why? Because all three had suffered from decades of neglect and, in all three cases, large numbers of patients were affected.
	For years, mental health services were the Cinderella of the NHS, despite the fact that, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, millions of people—perhaps as many as one in four of the population—face a problem at some point in their lives. Each year, 600,000 adults with serious mental health problems are cared for by specialist mental health services. Thousands more young people and tens of thousands of elderly people also receive care. For every individual with a serious mental illness, many others such as families, carers, friends and, indeed, members of the wider public are affected, sometimes—sadly—with tragic consequences.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to stress that mental illness takes many forms. It is worth saying at the outset that despite public perceptions to the contrary, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are a threat to no one. Indeed, many mentally ill patients are among the most vulnerable in our community. Reducing the stigma of mental illness should, in my view, be a priority for any caring, civilised society. That is why I was pleased last year that my Department launched the mind out for mental health campaign. It is the first time that the Government have backed a public information campaign specifically designed to tackle such discrimination.
	At the other end of the spectrum, however, there will always be some people with a serious mental disorder. Sometimes they do not recognise how ill they are; sometimes they are so disabled by their mental illness that they are not able to seek help, and sometimes they choose not to seek help. In a small minority of cases, people with a serious mental disorder will pose a significant risk to others but, more particularly, to themselves. In those circumstances, the Government's priority must be to protect patients, their families and the wider public both under the law and through the provision of appropriate services.
	This much, then, is common ground between the Opposition and the Government and probably all parties. The difference lies in what various parties have been prepared to do about these problems and are now prepared to do about them. My right hon. and hon. Friends are more than happy to debate these issues with the Conservative party, because they know the difference between the warm words of the Conservatives in opposition and the grim reality of the Conservatives in power.

Michael Fallon: rose—

Alan Milburn: For a serious debate, the hon. Member for Woodspring skated pretty lightly over 18 years in office. I think that he was a Minister for at least part of that time. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to forget what happened then, but what happened then informs what goes on now, and the standards of care and services that people with mental health problems receive.

Liam Fox: Is the Secretary of State really suggesting that the whole concept of care in the community as it was initially rolled out was not part of a consensus? If he believes that, he is quite wrong.

Alan Milburn: I will be coming to care in the community in a moment. I think that it was a spectacular failure, for reasons that I will give, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is gradually coming to that view too.
	It is worth reminding the House about the state of mental health services that we found when we came to power in 1997. The view not only among carer and patient groups but in the wider health service is that mental health services had been allowed to become the poor relation in the NHS. There were no national standards of care—not a single one.
	Mental health law had been allowed to be overtaken by both developments in services and in the wider society. Care in the community had been a failure, not least because the policy was both indiscriminate and underfunded. Years of under-investment had left dedicated, hard-working staff in our mental health services with more than their fair share of run-down buildings, continual cuts in the number of beds and, of course, shortages of staff. Indeed, in 1997, two-thirds of health authorities did not even provide round-the-clock access to community mental health services. The simple truth is that mental health was not a priority then—but it is now.

David Heath: I do not for a moment doubt the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to this policy area, but the reality in my constituency is that we have seen the contraction of psycho-geriatric wards and acute mental wards into a centralised general hospital rather than the provision of such support across the community. That affects links between patients and their general practitioners and between patients and their own community and family. Is that part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy or is something still wrong with the funding arrangements for mental health trusts?

Alan Milburn: On the provision of mental health services for older people—the point that the hon. Gentleman raised—as for provision elsewhere in the mental health service, the answer is not that one particular model of care is required. We need a spectrum of services to cope with the spectrum of needs; an elderly lady with severe dementia will have a different set of needs from those of a young child with depression. Our problem is that there are gaping loopholes and gaps in provision across the piece—whether in the acute sector, the community sector, crisis intervention or intermediate care. We need to plug all those gaps.
	I do not advocate a single model of care as the answer to the problems in our mental health services—a range of provision is needed. The truth is that—as we set out in the national service framework that we published about three years ago—it will take some time to get there, so it is better to be straight and honest with people about that. We have started a 10-year programme and we are making progress, and I shall come to some of the details in a moment.

Michael Fallon: The right hon. Gentleman talked about warm words and he says that he is making progress, but surely he must admit that it has taken two years since the end of the consultation process to produce a Bill and even that is only a draft. What is the framework for putting his warm words into action?

Alan Milburn: I shall come to that in a moment. Not even the most devout proponents of the Mental Health Act 1983 would claim that it was a radical overhaul of the 1950s provision. Fundamentally, mental health legislation in the 21st century is based on a model that dates back to the 1950s, so it would be just as well, as we have this once in a generation opportunity to get it right, that we do precisely that—through consultation, Green Papers, White Papers and a draft Bill. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, because it provides a wider opportunity both in the House and outside to ensure that the provisions in the new Act are right and that we learn from some of the deficiencies in current mental health law.

Joan Humble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid closure of large mental institutions in the 1980s and the ejection of tens of thousands of people on to an unsuspecting community which was ill prepared to accept them has made his and the Government's job in building up new mental health services much more difficult? Does that not justify careful thought in order to ensure that the community is properly prepared for a genuine programme of care in the community?

Alan Milburn: It is as true for mentally ill patients as for most patients that nobody actually likes being in hospital; nobody wants to be in hospital and people try to avoid it wherever possible. Sadly, for some people it will always be necessary, so we must get the range of provision right. Despite all the efforts in the 1980s and 1990s to make community care work, that one telling statistic, which I gave earlier, that in 1997 two-thirds of health authorities did not provide 24-hour access to community services, is a real indictment of the failure to implement what were undoubtedly good intentions. They were good intentions, but I am afraid that the world is paved with good intentions; deeds, rather than words, count in the end.
	To get the range of services and provision right, three changes are necessary: first, changes in the law; secondly, reform to services, particularly with new national standards; and, thirdly, the right level of investment in mental health services. I should like to deal with each of those changes in turn.
	First, on the changes to the law, I am publishing today a new draft mental health Bill and consultation paper, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), our proposals have already been subject to fairly detailed consultation during the past couple of years, but I hope that the publication of a draft Bill will allow further detailed scrutiny to take place. I would certainly urge all right hon. and hon. Members who have an interest in mental health issues to engage in that process and, more particularly, those outside the House, too.
	The current mental health provisions date back to the 1950s. They are, quite simply, out of date. They have failed properly to protect the public, patients or, indeed, the staff who work in our mental health services. For example, under existing mental health law, the powers to treat patients compulsorily are available only if patients are in hospital. However, the majority of patients today are treated in the community. Public confidence in care in the community was undermined therefore by failures not just in the services, but in the law, too. The policy lost public confidence because, in too many cases, neither the services nor the law properly protected either patients or the public.
	Services have too often worked in isolation from one another. Too often, severely ill patients have been allowed to drift out of contact with mental health services altogether. Many patients have failed to comply with treatment. That is, I am afraid, a recurring theme in all the inquiries into the tragic toll of homicides and suicides that have taken place in recent years. Doctors have often been in the absurd position of having to wait until patients in the community become ill enough to require admission to hospital. That prevents earlier intervention to reduce the risks to the patients and, of course, the wider public.
	In particular, existing legislation has failed to provide adequate public protection from those whose propensity to be a risk to others stems from a severe personality disorder. As a result, patients and the public alike have been put at risk; they have been denied the protection that they need. Every year, there are more than 1,000 suicides and 50 homicides involving patients who have been in touch with mental health services in the previous 12 months. That graphically illustrates the failure of the old legal framework, which is in desperate need of reform. Our proposals, which are the most far-reaching for decades, are designed to enhance the safety of patients and the public.
	It may be of benefit to the House if I briefly outline the proposals in the draft Bill and the accompanying consultation paper. At the heart of the draft Bill is the need to ensure that there is a new focus on the individual patient. Under the current law, patients are defined and treated not on the basis of their individual needs, but depending on which category of mental disorder they have. That has led to a loophole in the Mental Health Act 1983, so that a small minority of dangerous mentally disordered people have been able to argue that they will not personally benefit from treatment. In some cases, they argue that their illness makes them refuse to take part in appropriate therapy sessions or to co-operate with treatment that could be provided for them.
	Under the 1983 Act, patients in those circumstances would be discharged from treatment and even detention, although people in official positions—whether prison officers or police officers—know full well that they could pose a risk to others as well as themselves.

Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alan Milburn: Let me continue this point. I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a moment or two.
	The current system does nothing to protect those patients and it certainly fails to protect the public if a small minority of dangerous people with mental disorders in those circumstances go on to harm or even kill others or themselves. In the draft Bill, we shall introduce one broad definition of mental disorder and one set of tight conditions to govern the use of compulsory powers. If those conditions are met and treatment is available, compulsory powers may be used. That will close the loophole and ensure better treatment for dangerous mentally disordered patients and provide better protection for the public.
	Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have powers to direct those who are already serving prison sentences to be assessed and treated. Subject to the new mental health tribunal process, which I will describe shortly, it will be possible to detain dangerous people with severe personality disorders for as long as they continue to present a high risk to others. New services are currently being developed for that small but high-risk group of patients, and my Department and the Home Office are committed to providing more than £120 million to make them available to all who need them.

Evan Harris: There is clearly a great debate to be had about the Secretary of State's definitions of mental disorder and mental illness, but I want to ask about his view of treatment. He seemed to imply that there was treatment for severe personality disorders. Does he accept that there is at least controversy about whether effective treatment exists, and that, notwithstanding good intentions, defining treatment as including the general term "habilitation"—which means, to an extent, teaching people how to behave—does not solve the problem, which is that he wants to detain people who cannot be treated?

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is right: there is controversy. There is certainly not a set view in clinical circles.
	Some interesting experimental therapeutic interventions have been made in the United States and Holland, for example, involving precisely the small cohort of patients whom we are discussing. We are trying to learn from the impact of those interventions. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already provided funds for pilot programmes at Broadmoor prison, and we plan other tests at Rampton and Broadmoor to try to ensure that the right range of treatments is available.
	The hon. Gentleman could put his question in a different way, and ask what else we should do. Should we throw up our hands and say that there is nothing we can do? People in the system know fine well that although this is a very small minority of potential patients, they pose a substantial risk to themselves, their families and the wider public. Given those circumstances, what are those of us in decision-making positions to do? Are we to say there is nothing we can do, or try to close a patent loophole in the law?
	I think it right for us to publish our Bill in draft: White Papers are one thing, but seeing legal, statutory proposals in black and white is quite another. I know that there is concern, and that there will be controversy, but I say in all candour that unless we do something we shall see more of the problems in our constituencies of which we are only too painfully aware.

Liam Fox: What the Secretary of State is saying is important. He has rightly drawn a distinction between the draft Bill and the current legislation, pointing out that there is now a single definition of mental disorder and that the treatability criterion is being abolished. He says that he is doing this because a proportion of patients with severe personality disorders would otherwise pose a risk to the public. According to the Government's own research, what proportion of those patients might expect to be detained under new legalisation?

Alan Milburn: That depends on the process, which I will describe in a moment.
	As the hon. Gentleman probably recalls from earlier debates—I think my last statement to the House on the subject was made at the time of the White Paper's publication—we currently estimate that between 2,100 and 2,400 people make up the small cohort of potential patients whom we are discussing. Most are in contact with the criminal justice system, and the overwhelming majority are already in prison. We are revising the estimate, however, and it is likely to be revised upwards rather than downwards. Although the number is small, unless appropriate treatment and management are available there is a grave danger of precisely the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech.
	Other changes in mental health law are needed. In the past, too many people with mental health problems were rightly removed from crumbling acute hospitals, but wrongly placed in the community with little support and poor treatment.
	Some lost touch with services, with tragic results for them and their families. Some started on a cycle of detention in hospital and discharge to the community, only to be forced back into hospital when a crisis hit. That revolving door is bad for patients and their families, and we intend to tackle it in the Bill.
	We will do so by allowing compulsory treatment to be provided in the community, as well as in a hospital. That will allow earlier intervention to prevent a patient's condition deteriorating and so help to reduce the risks that patients may pose to themselves or to others. New orders will mean that patients subject to compulsory treatment, whether in the hospital or in the community, will have to comply with the terms of their treatment programme.
	In his speech, the hon. Member for Woodspring asked about medication. I know that concerns have been expressed about that matter. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will never be appropriate, under the terms of the draft Bill, to provide compulsory medication in a person's home. Instead, orders will set out the form of treatment that should apply. For example, if a patient in a clinic refused to comply with the order, he or she could be readmitted compulsorily to hospital.
	Mental health legislation, by necessity, must tread a delicate path between protecting those who are most vulnerable and ensuring public safety. In the draft Bill, the new powers that I have just described are balanced with additional safeguards for patients. Each patient will have an individualised care plan, on which any compulsory treatment will be based. Unlike now, those making decisions about compulsion will also have to consider the patient's wishes and feelings about his or her treatment and the views of his or her carers.
	There will be proper safeguards, and patients will be helped to make use of them. Most significantly, all orders for compulsory assessment and treatment for more than 28 days will have to be authorised by an independent judicial body—the new mental health tribunal—and its decisions will be regularly reviewed. For offenders, of course, the initial decision to apply compulsory assessment and treatment will be a matter not for the tribunal, but for the courts.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and for his approach to these matters. In 1986, some of us managed to steer an Act through the House dealing with some of the issues touched on today. I remind my right hon. Friend of two things. First, that legislation provided that patients leaving long-term care would receive a proper assessment and a response to their needs. Secondly, and more importantly, it provided that advocacy would be crucial to a patient's rights. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that those factors have not been forgotten?

Alan Milburn: They certainly have not been forgotten. I commend the work that my right hon. Friend did in 1986, and still does today, on many of the issues to do with the very difficult problems associated with long-term care for some of the most vulnerable in society, and with the role of carers. He is right about what must be included in the barrage of safeguards that we must put in place.
	Removing a person's liberty is an extremely serious step to take. That might be the right thing to do in some circumstances, both for the individual and society, but the power must be balanced with new safeguards for the person involved. As is the case now, those safeguards will include the provision of free legal advice for those who need it. For the first time, people will also get the right to new independent advocacy services, which are intended to help them through what can be the rather byzantine maze of mental health legislation. Those free and independent advocacy services will be available to every patient who goes through the compulsory treatment process.

David Hinchliffe: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's detailed analysis of the draft Bill in respect of the role of tribunals. He made it clear that tribunal decisions will be subject to review. A constituent of mine received a mental health tribunal decision more than a year ago, but it has not been implemented yet. How would the circumstances of a person like that man be affected by the new arrangements proposed in the draft Bill?

Alan Milburn: I am not familiar with that case, although if my hon. Friend writes to me about it, I shall be happy to consider it. Let me say two things. First, under the draft Bill, the decisions of the mental health tribunal are binding on the national health service, and we would expect the national health service to act quickly to implement them. Secondly, there are safeguards, too. Compulsory treatment will be allowable for the first 28 days without recourse to the mental health tribunal, although the right of appeal to the mental health tribunal exists even during that period. Thereafter, the tribunal can make compulsory treatment orders, for up to six months in the first instance, for a further six months in the second instance, and, finally, for periods of 12 months and so on. Rights of periodic review will exist within that if the person concerned wants to challenge it or their carer has a view about it. I want to assure my hon. Friend that, all along, we have tried to balance safeguards with proper protection for the public.

David Hinchliffe: I am not sure that I fully clarified my point. The patient to whom I referred was subject to a tribunal decision that he should be transferred from a particular hospital a year ago. He has still not been transferred. When the draft Bill becomes legislation, how will those circumstances differ? Who would ensure that that decision was implemented?

Alan Milburn: First, that will be a decision for the tribunal. Secondly, however—this is an important further safeguard, too—as my hon. Friend is aware, we currently have the Mental Health Act Commission. The draft Bill proposes that we build on the work of the commission but give a new power to the new, independent health inspectorate that we envisage—the Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection—which will have precisely the function of ensuring that the decisions of the mental health tribunal are carried out fairly, according to legislation. In law, the national health service will have to act following a tribunal decision. An additional failsafe exists, however, through the powers that will be accorded to the Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection.
	These are major changes to mental health laws. As I said, we are committed to consulting widely on them. We intend, however, to provide new safeguards for patients alongside better protection for the wider community. I believe that the changes are long overdue.

Peter Viggers: The Secretary of State stresses the breadth of the consultation procedure, which I am sure that we all welcome. A procedure exists, however, whereby the Committee dealing with a Bill can go into a Select Committee phase to take evidence before moving to a Standing Committee phase. Have the Government considered whether it might be appropriate to use that procedure for this Bill? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State answers, may I say to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that I am not entirely happy about the device that he is using now, unless he can satisfy me that it is purely and simply for diary purposes?

Alan Milburn: I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is not taping me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) is tempting me to take on powers that I do not really have. In the end, those are matters for the business managers. The Government would certainly look favourably on the idea of referring the draft Bill to a Special Standing Committee. That would be helpful not only in terms of being able to examine it in detail, as we did with the Adoption and Children Bill, for example, but of taking evidence from many parties, some of whom will be happy with the provisions, and some not. If that is the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I have no problem with it. I have no doubt that it can be discussed through the usual channels.
	Mental health legislation, however, is only for the small minority of patients with a mental health problem that poses the gravest risk to themselves or to others. It is really important to keep that in mind and in perspective when debating these issues. I have no doubt that tomorrow, almost inevitably, the newspapers will be full of stories about the compulsory powers in the mental health Bill that we are proposing. However, we are debating a range of issues here today, and mental health law inevitably only ever affects a small minority of those patients with a mental health problem. It is important to keep that in mind when we debate these issues.
	In the end, good quality care and treatment are key to making sure that most people with mental health problems never need to fall within the scope of mental health legislation. That is why, for the first time, the Government have laid down national standards for mental health services. Not surprisingly, the national service framework that we published three years ago has been widely welcomed, not just by clinicians and managers, but even more importantly, by carers and users of the services.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that Government policy will have failed if the use of compulsion does not decrease in future?

Alan Milburn: That is what we want. We must try, and are trying, to undertake two parallel processes. The first is to deal with the loopholes in the law that, admittedly, only ever affect a small minority of people and a small minority of patients, although with huge and sometimes tragic consequences. However, our effort overall must be to develop services that are capable, in an appropriate way, of dealing with people's problems without compulsion. That is why we are trying to build up services in hospitals as well as crisis intervention teams in the community, assertive outreach teams and some of the new services that are being made available for young people with the first onset of psychosis.
	Normally such young people, who are among the most vulnerable in the community, are simply not dealt with at all. They often have to wait years to be seen. However, we now know that the model that is being rolled out in 18 local communities across the country works. It can provide quick interventional services and makes a real difference to those people. It prevents them from ever requiring hospitalisation.
	As I tried to make clear earlier, the trick is to get the range of services right. Although the national service framework and the NHS plan are, by necessity, 10-year programmes—we must build up capacity and change the culture of the service—progress is under way. Last year was the first year in perhaps decades in which the overall number of mental health beds in the national health service rose rather than fell. There are more than 500 extra secure beds and 320 extra 24-hour staffed beds. Such services were never available in the past, but more of them are to come.
	Clearly, everything cannot be done at once, because of staffing and capacity constraints. None the less, a range of services that gets early intervention into place and ensures that appropriate services for those who need them are available in primary and hospital care is in place across the country as a whole.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State mentioned what he thought would be in the headlines tomorrow, but I am sure that he is aware that in the headlines today is the case of a 60-year-old mental patient who was raped on a mixed-sex ward. He will recall our exchanges in the past about mixed-sex wards, and that in 1997, the date for ending them was envisaged to be 1999. That went back to 2002, and then to the end of 2002. When will we see the elimination of mixed-sex wards in mental hospitals?

Alan Milburn: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be cautious about drawing too much from an individual case in the national health service. I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the incident concerned happened to a patient who occupied a single room, not in a mixed-sex ward. I may be wrong about that, but if the hon. Gentleman is getting his information from the Daily Mail, he should be cautious.
	Wherever the incident took place, it was appalling and almost indescribable. It raises profound questions for the NHS. It is worth remembering that there are some evil people out there and we must ensure that the right form of protection is available for patients without—this is something we want to avoid—turning all our hospitals into prisons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to avoid that too.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State is partly correct. According to BBC news online, the incident occurred in a patient's room, but it is believed that a male went through a mixed-sex ward before reaching that room. If it had not been a mixed-sex ward, that person would have been spotted. In any case, the Government have stated for years that they would abolish mixed-sex wards, but they have not done so. When will they do that?

Alan Milburn: In all candour, the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw too many wrong conclusions from one isolated terrible case. Let us examine carefully whether the incident involved a mixed-sex ward or not. It is my understanding that a member of the public came into the hospital and entered the lady's individual, single room.
	We are making progress on mixed-sex wards. I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have targets to meet by the end of the year. I have no doubt that he will be the first to raise it if we do not meet them. However, I can assure him that we are well on target. If he wants to have a word with me after 31 December, we will contrast the progress that this Government have made in eliminating mixed-sex accommodation with the absolute failure to do anything about it when his Government were in power.
	Providing the right range of services—whether in community services or acute services—requires investment. Until the Government came to office, no special funding was available for mental health services. When I hear the hon. Member for Woodspring railing against diverting mental health funding into other clinical areas, I am afraid that I also hear the sound of opportunism resonating with hypocrisy. He usually never misses an opportunity to argue the case against what he calls political priorities for funding certain services in the NHS—priorities set by Ministers. Mental health is such a service. I say that unashamedly. Under this Government, it is receiving special funding—I say that unashamedly, too—because it has a special need. Far from not producing results, the resources that it is getting are indeed producing results.

Oliver Heald: Where is the money going?

Alan Milburn: I did a bit of research before the debate. In the hon. Gentleman's area of North-East Hertfordshire, an assertive outreach team has recently been established to cover that region and a new rehabilitation project is providing high-level support to 12 people and lesser support to eight others. In addition, a new community mental health centre was established last year which offers day care and outreach facilities. A new assertive outreach team and a crisis resolution team are operating in area represented by the hon. Member for Woodspring.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is well aware of the opening of the Christopher unit in Chelmsford; it is a seven-bedded psychiatric intensive care unit. Older people's services in his area include a liaison nurse and a third consultant post. There is 24-hour access to those services for the first time. We have also provided drug and alcohol services and more appropriate premises.
	The Conservatives ask where the money is going: it is going into front-line mental health services, which is precisely where we want it to go. Staff numbers are growing, too. There are 450 more psychiatrists, 1,700 more psychologists and more than 2,000 extra nurses working in mental health services. Services for patients with the most severe mental illness have been the first priority for investment, and rightly so.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring rightly raised concerns about the standard of prison care, but as he heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), progress is also under way in that sector. We can make further progress in the years to come, provided that—this is the crucial consideration—we are prepared as a society, as a Government and in this House to commit the necessary resources to correct the historical underfunding that has been all too prevalent in our mental health services.
	It is certainly true that there is a long way to go to secure the world-class mental health services that our country should aspire to provide, but progress is under way, and as the NHS plan set out, there is more to come. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Woodspring quoted approvingly from the Wanless review, which refers to mental health. I am pleased that the Conservatives now acknowledge the importance of Derek Wanless's work, especially as the hon. Gentleman dismissed the report when it was published by saying that it had "completely missed the point."
	The hon. Gentleman may find the odd paragraph here and there in the Wanless review with which he can agree, but he cannot—perhaps he will not—make the single commitment for which it calls: a commitment to a growing NHS with rising levels of investment not just for one or two years, but over a period of years.
	It was that commitment to a growing and improving NHS that we made at the time of the last Budget, and it was precisely that which the Conservatives voted against. We chose to make the necessary investment in the NHS; they chose otherwise. This week they will the ends, with today's demand for an improvement in mental health services; next week, no doubt, it will be something else; and almost daily, Conservative Back Benchers demand more health spending in their own constituencies. It is worth reminding the hon. Member for Woodspring—and the House—that only a few weeks ago he led those same Conservative Members into the No Lobby to vote against the Budget that provides the means to achieve the ends that they claim to want.
	Unless and until the Conservatives have the courage to support the investment that the national health service needs, their claims of conversion to a new form of compassionate, caring conservatism will count for nothing. I say in all candour to the hon. Gentleman that until then they will be judged not on their rhetoric, but on their record—their record of underinvestment when in office, and of opposing investment when in opposition. They can talk about caring until they are blue in the face, but talk is cheap; making the necessary investment in public services is not.
	It is the Labour Government who have begun the process of transforming our mental health services. Taken together with the reforms and investment that we are making in mental health services throughout the country, the proposals that I have outlined today for new mental health laws will enhance the safety of both patients and the wider public. I commend those proposals to the House and urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to back the amendment in the Lobby tonight.

Evan Harris: There is clearly much with which to agree in both the Front-Bench speeches that we have heard so far and in the Conservatives' motion. Indeed, it is tempting to support everything in the motion. The only point of disagreement might be what is lacking from the motion—an even more candid analysis of the record of many previous Governments. None the less, I think that the motion on the Order Paper is one that my party can support.
	The Government have made things difficult by proposing to remove some of the words in the motion and replace them with other equally important statements. That puts those of us who did not table an amendment for fear that it might not be selected, in the difficult position of wanting to support some of the thoughts expressed both in the motion and in the Government amendment.
	The debate has ranged wider than the words of the motion. The change to the title of the debate is interesting. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) claimed that it was illegitimate for the Conservatives to change the subject of their debate, but I think that it is legitimate for them to have done so. They clearly thought that mental health was an important issue this week, perhaps because they knew that the Government were about to publish a draft mental health Bill.
	The change on the Order Paper makes it appear that the Government advanced the publication of the Bill to today to allow us to have a debate on the Bill as well as on the Conservatives' motion. There are good and bad aspects to that proposition. It seems to me that the House has witnessed a reverse statement: questions were asked by Conservative Front Benchers before the statement was made, and parts of the Secretary of State's speech resembled the sort of prepared statement that he would give on the publication of a draft Bill.
	I hope that we will be able to return in good time to the draft Bill and its provisions. I welcome the fact that the Bill is in draft form, but not that the whole process has been somewhat delayed. None the less, the Government ought to be commended on the fact that the process has been deliberative—deliberation is a separate issue from delay. I am pleased that the Bill is in draft form because we have significant concerns about its current provisions, to some of which we take exception.
	In his speech and in an article in The Independent today, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) analysed care in the community, describing it as correct in principle. I agree with him. I would go further and say that care in the community was a good policy. For many people—not only those who were in institutions and were released as a result of that policy change, but those who would have become new patients facing life, or at least long-term, incarceration in institutions—the policy of care in the community introduced by the Conservatives was a boon.
	Is it correct to say that because there have been problems with care in the community, it has failed? I would argue that that is an unfair statement, because care in the community was never properly tried and it never had the required funding and resources. Clearly, in mental health more than any other area, the therapeutic environment is staff-rich. Many other conditions can be treated at arm's length from professional staff, with drugs alone or with surgery and little follow-up, but mental health needs a high ratio of professional staff to patients, not only to monitor drug therapy, but to offer the talking treatments and counselling that are becoming popular with patients and whose effectiveness is increasingly becoming evident.
	That is why care in the community, which loses the economies of scale achieved by gathering people in institutions, should not be seen simply as a cash-releasing exercise allowing old hospitals to be closed and sold off and the overheads saved, and why it required not just existing funding, but additional investment, which was never made available. Despite progress in their thinking, the Conservatives have not accepted that analysis of care in the community.
	In his article in The Independent and in his speech, the hon. Member for Woodspring said that he thought care in the community
	"was implemented too quickly, often with inappropriate patient selection, and in too many places there was too little investment".
	If he had ended with those words, we could have said, "And so say all of us," but he qualified them by referring to
	"too little investment in training, finance and related areas."
	I assume that "related areas" refers to the staff, psychiatrists, community psychiatric nurses, community care managers, and the organisation and services to support patients in the community.
	I would not say that care in the community failed because of poor implementation. That appears to blame the staff or civil servants for what was a political decision to underfund the sector. I say that it was in large part due to a failure of funding and—these arguments have been well rehearsed before—the difficulty of communication between social services and health departments, particularly when both are short of money. I have made the point before that to describe the barrier between them as a Berlin wall is wrong—it would be more accurate to say a Berlin trench, with both digging for the resources. That applies not only to the Conservative Government, but to the previous Parliament.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Zito Trust in drawing attention to the needs of patients in the community and the dangers that they pose to themselves and the public. Mike Howlett of the Zito Trust was quoted as complaining that part of the problem with the way in which some patients in the community have been managed is that dangers were not spotted. That is no excuse for detention of those with personality disorder, or for compulsory treatment, but it is an argument for better follow-up, more support for those patients and ensuring that they remain in touch.
	I had a homicide in my constituency which occurred nine years after the patient was last in touch with mental health services of either kind, so it was not a problem of poor follow-up of a treated patient who was in the system. The patient was not in the system at all. There is not enough evidence to suggest that we need to go further than improving support. We should not be considering indefinite detention and other such policies.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring also spoke—and I believe that others will speak—about the stigma attaching to people with mental health problems. We must recognise that, and regret stigma where we see it—in films and on television—in the portrayal of people with mental illness in stereotypical or caricatured forms. We must regret irresponsible newspaper coverage of events in the community and seek to persuade newspapers to look at the problem from both points of view, and not just to represent, as they see it, the views of the outraged public.
	We in the House have a responsibility for the language that we use. I have often been embarrassed by language used in the House—including, no doubt, some of the language used by my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Woodspring was provoked into describing, without justification, an intervention from a Labour Member as "imbecilic". The use of such words is part of the problem. The Secretary of State's predecessor sometimes became carried away and used heightened language about which I have expressed concerns to him. He did so, for example, in describing Opposition politicians as loony. That may have been worth a laugh at the time, and such language might sometimes have been merited—I am not speaking about those on my Benches—in terms of what he was trying to say. None the less, the use of such terms is part of the problem of increasing stigma. I hope that the Government guide themselves in line with their campaign to ensure that we are responsible in our use of language.
	Mental health services have been described in this debate as Cinderella services. We need to analyse in a little more detail the reasons why they can be so described. It has always been difficult to argue for more funding for mental health at local and indeed national level, because it is not glamorous and the latest technologies are not found in this specialty. The status of professionals working in mental health has not traditionally equalled that of those working in acute medicine, emergency medicine and elective surgery, and in what is seen as life-saving surgery in general. That makes it is almost more important for Governments and more incumbent upon them to redress the balance and ensure that adequate funds are made available. We start from a position of gross underfunding of the mental health specialty. It was most prevalent in the Conservative years, but also existed in the first two—if not four or five—years of the current Administration.
	We have a further problem in that there are no easy outcome measures. When the Government link funding or prioritisation to the measurement of outcomes, as they do in elective surgery and accident and emergency medicine in terms of trolley waits or general waiting times, the danger is that specialties such as mental health and care of the elderly, which are not easily outcome-measured, suffer because of a lack of political prioritisation, despite the words of the Secretary of State and despite the national service framework. If targets are based on those outcomes and health service managers know that their jobs are dependent on their meeting Government targets that have been raised to a level of political risk, such as those for waiting times and, even worse, waiting lists, there is a danger of diversion of resources from mental health to those other fields.
	That is why I have argued—and I have done so consistently, in contrast with the Conservatives—against such central priority setting. I believe that funding should generally not be earmarked; that priorities should be set locally; and that when politicians, even under pressure from the Opposition or the newspapers, seek to set targets in certain areas, they must recognise that there will be a tyranny over the outcome measured in terms of time and resource allocation and prioritisation.
	That is a problem. The Secretary of State will recognise that some of the resources that he meant to go into his priority of mental health were diverted into dealing with the here and now of deficits and waiting list targets, and that that funding was, and still is, being poached from mental health. It would be better to ensure that local priorities are set with input on public health and guidance from the Government, but not strict targets. There is a need to allow the bottom-up approach to ensure that resources are provided.
	Within this particular Cinderella specialty—there are two such specialties: elderly care and mental illness—the elderly mentally ill are the Cinderella of Cinderellas.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman talks about money that the Government have earmarked not going into mental health services, which is a particular concern. However, is it not the case that he does not even believe in the earmarking in the first place, so the idea that the money would go into mental health is not correct?

Evan Harris: The difficulty with earmarking is that there will always be something that is not earmarked, unless one centrally earmarks funding for every service. That is why I do not believe that the earmarking of funding is the right way forward. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. I believe that I have been consistent in holding the position that earmarking for the pleasure of allowing the Secretary of State to make announcements about his priorities does a disservice to neglected areas. However, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's interest in mental health, which has been even longer held than that of his hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring, if I may put it that way.
	The elderly mentally ill are affected by shortages not only in acute beds, but in residential care and community care services, owing to the impact of the huge funding gap in social care. It is well recognised that social services departments now spend £1 billion more on social care than the standard spending assessment. The Government's failure to meet that gap means that other services are having to be cut. Until the Government put some of the new resources—more than they plan to—into social services, the false economy of beds being blocked will remain. As the Secretary of State knows, bed blocking is a phenomenon not only for acute hospitals, but for acute mental hospitals.

Alan Milburn: On the £1 billion gap, is it Liberal Democrat policy to eradicate it?

Evan Harris: Yes, it is. We were clear about that in our alternative Budget. If the Secretary of State looks at the detail, he will see that putting £1 billion of new money into the gap would prevent the inexorable rise in regressive council tax and facilitate the local development of services for growth areas instead of propping up the service. I do not want to be distracted too much into social care, but I assure the Secretary of State that my comments are not inconsistent with what we have said before.
	A survey that we carried out in the past year showed that 72 per cent. of social services departments were unable to meet the demand for nursing elderly mental illness beds and that 68 per cent. were unable to meet the demand for residential elderly mental illness beds. Fifty-eight per cent. reported shortfalls in the provision of specialised dementia care and 62 per cent. reported shortfalls in provision for older people with challenging behaviour. In dealing with mental illness, we must recognise that we are also dealing with illness that presents as dementia, especially among the elderly. They are affected by underfunding in every budget on which they rely; they are the Cinderella of Cinderellas.
	We have had a brief opportunity to look at the draft Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that we need to spend more time on the detail and that we can do so in Government time, perhaps in Westminster Hall. The Bill has two main flaws. It provides for too much detention without proper treatment, and for inappropriate treatment in the community without enabling people to get back into hospital when they need to.

Tom Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument, which he is doing very well, I ask him to focus on those people who, whether they like it or not, remain in the community, and who were the subject of the Donaldson report on chronic fatigue syndrome and ME. Does he agree that in so far as there is a psychiatric input—which is debatable—no time should be lost in referring GPs to the findings of that report, and that it would be a great mistake if the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was asked to spend too much time on it?

Evan Harris: Not enough information on those difficult conditions is available to or absorbed by those in primary care, on whom the burden most falls. There have been reports in recent days about the amount of unnecessary paperwork that GPs have to get through, and I hesitate to say that they should do even more reading without some being taken away from them. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks are on the record. All hon. Members have constituents with chronic fatigue syndrome or ME, and we know what an ordeal they have to go through to get recognition of their condition, let alone the treatment and care that they and their families need.
	Returning to the draft Bill, it is going too far to detain people who should not be detained for intervention that cannot in all cases be described as treatment. Again, we need more time to develop that, but the Secretary of State knows the arguments against the provisions.
	It is important to hold a debate on compulsory treatment orders. There are arguments in favour of compulsory treatment and the Select Committee on Health made important points about it in its report in July 2000. We look forward to hearing the Chairman's views on the matter. The Health Committee was ambivalent and raised anxieties about it, but did not automatically rule out such a provision. The Government must show even greater recognition of the anxieties than the Secretary of State did.
	It is feared that expanding the definition of mental disorder to include those with personality disorder, and expanding the definition of treatment to include habilitation—teaching people how to live independently—will mean that the definitions are too broad to reassure those of us who are worried that too many civil liberties will be lost in the name of public protection. It is worrying that the Secretary of State uses language such as, "If people refuse treatment, they will be compulsorily detained." If those people are deemed capable of refusing treatment, it means that although they may be mentally disordered, they may also be competent to decline treatment. If they do that, the Secretary of State will add an extra group of people to those who can currently be compulsorily detained.
	The principles of non-discrimination and autonomy for people who are capable of giving and, importantly, refusing consent for treatment must be respected. Otherwise we enter new territory that is dangerous for Governments without greater support from key organisations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Joan Humble: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the anger and bewilderment of people in the community who are assaulted by neighbours must be weighed in the balance? The police will not act because doctors advise them that the person is not fit to plead, and the health service will not act because it claims that the person has an untreatable mental illness. The problem persists, and there is anger in the community.

Evan Harris: I understand the hon. Lady's point. The Secretary of State dealt with the matter when he asked, with an expansive shrug of shoulders, what Governments can do when faced with the problem that she outlined, and talked about the difficulties in the current law of ensuring that such people are treated. I acknowledge that the difficulty needs wider debate. However, I believe that steps must be taken before we go down the path that the Secretary of State suggests.
	First, we must provide greater community support and early intervention, which is not currently available. Many tragedies could be prevented not simply by detention, but by early detection and intervention, and greater support.
	Secondly, we must understand the principle of reciprocity. I do not believe that people who are subject to greater powers under the draft Bill will recognise that they are being fairly treated until the Government provide enhanced treatment facilities. I hope that they will do that with the extra funding for the NHS so that there is no delay in getting a hospital bed, or, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, in getting out of a hospital bed into other treatment. There should not be a delay before allocation to a community health team. There should not be such a shortage of professionals that oversight is inadequate.
	We have an additional duty to ensure that patients who are capable but threatened with compulsory treatment are not rationed out of health care. I am conscious of the time, and the debate could continue, but I wanted to draw attention, before Second Reading of the Bill that is now in draft form—I hope that it will be amended—to the fact we could hold significant debates on this issue.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made an important point about mental health in prisons. There are significant difficulties in prison, where all the problems in the community are writ large because there is a concentration of people many of whom have mental health problems. Despite the best efforts of those who work under siege in prisons, the health service facilities there are not adequate. The Government must pay greater attention to those concerns.
	The problem of dual diagnosis has not yet been raised, although I am sure that all hon. Members will know that it is a major issue, involving mental illness coexisting with drug dependency. It is prevalent particularly among the prison population, but also in the population of drug users outside. Whatever resources are needed for each of those groups, the problem requires a combination of behaviour that is mediated not primarily through the judicial system but through enhanced treatment.
	The Secretary of State felt that many of the people who had caused problems in the community through horrific and tragic incidents had not been in touch with mental health services at the time, even if they had previously been. I would suggest that that is an argument in favour of increasing the responsiveness of existing mental health services, and that that has to be done before the Government pursue other options. Otherwise, in the words of a civil servant to a conference in 2000, we shall be dealing not with a
	"health act for vulnerable people in need",
	but with a public safety Act.
	I shall not repeat the points that I made in an earlier intervention about treatability, but I am concerned that the number of people subject to detention on the basis of personality disorder will be dictated not by medical evidence—particularly if the pilot schemes and trials do not give the results that the Government want—but by the treatment of those people by the tabloids.
	In their joint statement, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Law Society have raised a number of concerns about the draft mental health Bill founded on the White Paper, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Woodspring but others of which were not. Until now, I have not read a briefing by a royal college so critical of Government policy and couched in such strong terms, and I hope that the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to read it. The statement says:
	"The proposals"—
	based on the White Paper—
	"would be costly and complex to implement. Government funds would be better spent in the provision of more effective clinical services for patients.
	The new Mental Health Review Tribunals alone would require the time of 600 (extra) psychiatrists. It would be impossible to recruit such numbers. Those in post would be diverted from direct patient care."
	Many feel that they are now; the shortage of mental health professionals is severe. [Interruption.] I think that the Secretary of State just said, from a sedentary position, that he considered those views to be "drivel". That is an argument that needs to take place, with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Law Society on one side, and the Secretary of State's wishful thinking on the other.
	The statement goes on:
	"It is right that new legislation should reflect the move from hospital to community care. But the proposals as they stand would introduce powers that are ethically dubious and practically unworkable. They take no account of alternatives such as the use of leave and discharge with treatment conditions."
	That is an alternative that was proposed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
	It is damaging and disappointing that the Government stand poised to implement the much needed updating of the Mental Health Act 1983 with what could be considered repressive legislation, and to lock up people with untreatable personality disorders indefinitely. The public must be protected from the risk of attack, but the best way to achieve that is to ensure that there are adequate resources in terms of psychiatrists, community psychiatric nurses, community care managers, drug therapies and talking treatments. The public, and, to a much greater extent, the mentally ill themselves, are at much greater risk from under-resourcing than from the absence of detention powers or compulsory treatment orders.
	The Conservatives have claimed that community care has failed, but it was never properly tried, because it has never been given the funding that it requires. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise the desperate need for resources and for improving the morale of people working in the mental health service, and for those things to be done before powers that are too draconian are taken in legislation.

David Hinchliffe: I welcome this debate, and I would like to say that there has been much in all the three previous speeches with which I genuinely agree. I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced their draft Bill, and I look forward to the debates on it. It will form the basis for important, long overdue changes in mental health legislation.
	The background to today's debate is interesting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the previous Secretary of State for Health, made the interesting comment, while he was still Secretary of State, that community care had failed, and today we have heard a possible confession from the Conservatives that their policies in the 1980s and 1990s on community care had failed.
	In debates such as this, I find myself thinking about what went before. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred briefly to lunatic asylums—the system of long-stay institutions that was in place not long ago. Community care is not a recent development; I had the interesting experience of working in community care in the 1970s, when it was getting under way. Reference has been made to Enoch Powell, and moves towards community care were being made as long ago as the early part of the 20th century.
	I have a vivid memory of what I saw in those long-stay institutions. The implication of debates such as this—that there was a golden age of lunacy, in which all such people were happily looked after in nice places—is absolute nonsense. Frankly, those places, some of which I knew well, were not nice. I was familiar with some of the highly questionable treatments that were used, and I witnessed the gross denigration of human rights. I remember training as a social worker in the early 1970s with former psychiatric nurses. They told me about a particular Yorkshire institution in which competitions were held to see who could throw patients furthest down a ward. My plea is that we do not forget that the previous situation was not positive but appalling for vast numbers of people.
	I have personal experience of discharging from hospital people who were deemed moral defectives—women who had spent their lives locked up in institutional care for doing nothing other than, say, having a child out of wedlock. That was a disgraceful and scandalous situation, which we should never forget. I met many others who were totally sane, even though they had spent their lives in institutional care. Indeed, other than the consequences of being institutionalised, they were no more mad than anybody in this place. Having said that, I have probably met more mad people in the Palace of Westminster than in all the years that I worked in various lunatic asylums and long-stay institutions.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned the Health Committee's mental health inquiry of 2002. It was a cross-party report, in which we stated that it was "misleading and unhelpful" to argue that care in the community had failed, but that
	"it has failed for some individuals".
	I readily concede that it has indeed failed for some. Like most hon. Members, I meet such people and I am very conscious of the need to address their difficulties. My personal view is that the vast majority of mental health patients get a better deal than that offered 25 years ago, and we should not forget that improvements have been made.
	I commend the previous Conservative Government on the work that they did. Although I opposed many of their measures and had some practical concerns, the principle behind their policy was correct. They were going in the right direction and secured many achievements in community care. I congratulate the current Government, too, on many of their mental health policies, particularly the national service framework—a commendable initiative that is delivering genuine and long overdue improvements. However, I concede that several important problems remain, and in the brief time available I want to spell them out.
	The resources question has been touched on. Money has been made available nationally, but it has not fed through to actual improvements in local mental health services. All of us—including, I suspect, Ministers—are concerned about that. I reiterate the point about funding discrepancies between health and social services. Commendably, through the Budget the Government have done something about that problem, which the Wanless report recognised. We now realise that such discrepancies have held back the development of alternatives for patients leaving hospital and returning to the community.
	I also want to repeat my concern—I have expressed it on many previous occasions—about fragmentation of services and the lack of co-ordination between health and social care. I shall not reiterate the solutions that I have described many times before, but I hope that they come to fruition at some point during my time in this place. It is taking a long time to implement them, but I remain hopeful. The Government are gradually moving towards an integrated health and social care system. Such a system is necessary because problems such as mental illness do not slot neatly into a medical model or a social care model, but overlap both.
	The lack of planning and co-ordination of services is obvious in my constituency, which contains male and female prisons. There is also a regional secure unit near my constituency. I visit each establishment and some of the special hospitals, and I see people who should be somewhere else, but nobody seems to ensure that such people move to where they should be. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in linking special hospitals to local trusts. That is an important move forward, but I would welcome the Government being more radical and acting on the many reports that have suggested that we need to leave behind the models of special hospitals that we have used for many years and have more localised regional secure units. That is a politically difficult step, because no one wants one in their backyard. I have one in my backyard and I understand the difficulties, but that is the way we must go. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in that direction, but we must go even further.
	When the Health Committee considered mental health, the rights of patients concerned me greatly. We visited Broadmoor hospital, where we were told that 60 per cent. of the women detained did not need to be there and could be cared for in an appropriate environment within the community. That was very worrying, and we must ensure that our new mental health laws do something about that. At Ashworth hospital, we were told that a quarter of the male patients could be cared for more appropriately in the community. I commend The Independent on Sunday, which is running a series of articles that look in detail at the circumstances of some of those patients, because we need to be reminded that they are human beings. We should be concerned to ensure that our legislation will address their circumstances.
	I am concerned that insufficient rigour is used when deciding where in the system patients would be most appropriately placed. That is why I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to ask who will ensure that the decisions of mental health tribunals are properly policed. At the moment—and I mean no disrespect to the Mental Health Act Commission—I see far too many examples of people being left in completely unsuitable placements. I welcome the proposals for the inspectorate to examine that issue, and I hope that it will be able to join up provision in a way that does not happen now.
	When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will address how we can square the principles of the national service framework—such as non-discrimination and combating stigma—with legislation that will primarily be focused on compulsion. That will present certain difficulties. On the matter of DSPD—dangerous and severe personality disorder—I would also welcome some clarification on what is a health issue and what is a criminal justice matter. Like the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, I have some concerns about that difficult area, and we need to get it right. I am aware that the Government's position differs somewhat from that of the expert group that advised the Government on proposals for change in mental health law. I would also welcome comments on the consistency of the diagnosis of DSPD—we are talking about 2,400 patients—because I know many psychiatrists and they do not all agree on the diagnosis. We need to be careful when labelling people, or possibly locking them up for good, that we know what we are talking about.
	Coincidentally, today I had a meeting with Young Minds, which was arranged many weeks ago. The young people I met made the point that we need to consider how we can prevent increasing numbers of children and young people from developing mental disorders. Their concern was that we do not make sufficient links between our health services and our education system. They see, as I do, children under immense pressure from league tables, examinations—I have a son who completed his GCSEs today, so I know full well the pressures on youngsters and schools—depression and parental break-up. Many factors are forcing young people into mental illness and the current system does not sufficiently address the need for prevention.
	One of the issues that the Health Committee considered was the need to encourage far more user involvement in mental health services. We were impressed by some of the user initiatives that we saw in various places, which offered community-based alternatives to in-patient care. We felt that those initiatives should receive more support.
	We have seen many positive developments in the past 25 years, for which successive Governments may claim credit. Although I accept that many challenges lie ahead, in my time in social work and working on policy development in this place, I have seen profound changes and it saddens me that we tend to forget how bad things were before the introduction of community care.

Hugo Swire: Just a fortnight ago tragedy came to east Devon with the triple suicide of Anne Harris, Shaun Sheppard and Jamie Hague, about which there has been much press speculation—not least in the papers today. Professor Rachel Jenkins, the director of the World Health Organisation collaboration centre at London's Institute of Psychiatry, commented that she had never heard of a triple suicide before.
	I wish to set the record straight in the limited time available. None of the three was detained at the time under the Mental Health Act. They were informal patients at the Cedars unit of Wonford hospital in Exeter. That unit is an acute in-patient mental health facility for patients between the ages of 16 and 65, primarily from mid and east Devon, on short to medium-term admissions. People are generally admitted for a few days or weeks and on discharge, they are followed up by a care co-ordinator who is a member of the community mental health team. People are admitted with a range of mental health problems, including acute mental illnesses and longer term disorders.
	The challenge for the staff is to provide quality care in a less restricted atmosphere. The situation can change from minute to minute, and the staff have to attempt a difficult balancing act. The staff are a multi-disciplinary team, including medical staff, mental health nurses, occupational therapists and psychologists. Patients all have an individual care plan that covers medication, individual therapy, activities and leave away from the unit.
	I have spoken regularly to Valerie Howell, the chief executive of the Devon Partnership NHS Trust, and I am most grateful to her for keeping me informed. I was told today that the internal review will report by the end of July to the trust board and will be followed by an independent review, consisting of three independent people—probably a nurse, a doctor and a barrister. All the findings of both reviews will be made public and the families of the deceased, with whom, of course, our concerns lie, will be fully involved in them. The reviews will be open and, no doubt, provide lessons to be learned. I suspect that the main question will be whether the care and treatment package was correct and sufficient support available.
	The two patients who were thought to have killed themselves a few days earlier were not in-patients of the Cedars unit, although they were out-patients from the same health authority. The police have to deal with the aftermath of these distressing cases, and in this instance, no blame should be apportioned to them. It turns out that the policeman who found the three at the top of the cliff had no training in negotiation, although it is doubtful whether he could have done anything at that stage had he had such training.
	Professor Jenkins has pointed out that people with mental illness are at a greatly increased risk of suicide. One in six people with manic depression take their own lives. That is why I am pleased that the motion refers to
	"the lack of early intervention with the young".
	It also expresses
	"concern at the rise in the suicide rate of those suffering from mental illness".
	We have a responsibility to the most vulnerable in our society—those who sometimes, through no fault of their own, get left behind. I therefore welcome any measure that addresses that issue. It is with some enthusiasm, therefore, that I support the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

John Battle: I welcome the subject of the debate, because we should all work harder to ensure that the issue of mental health is brought out of the shadows and on to the Floor of the House more regularly. In past years, we heard statements on mental health in December 2000 and December 1998, and I welcome today's draft Bill.
	I cannot help but recall that, in February 1996, when the Conservative Government made a statement, we were in opposition, pressing the then Secretary of State to halt further psychiatric bed closures until community services were in place. We were pressing for the implementation of a full care programme. We asked that Government to address staff shortages and to change the mental health funding allocation formula to ensure that cash ended up where it was needed. That went unheard at the time, which is why—despite the tone of the remarks from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—I have to say that the new so-called "compassionate conservatism" is a rather shallow plant that lacks historic roots.

Andrew Murrison: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern at the closure of Elderly mentally infirm mental illness beds across the country, and particularly in my constituency, under this Government without a commensurate increase in hospital at-home provision?

John Battle: The hon. Gentleman should go to the Library to study how we had care in the community by default because of the closure of beds under the previous Government.
	Let us consider the future. There is still a deep fear of addressing the taboo of mental health and there is still a stigma attached to it. There is still a sense that although the brain is a wonderful organ, it is still not sufficiently understood, despite all our brilliant neuroscientists. We know little about its complex workings and connections as it integrates, at its best, the mind and the body.
	We neglect mental health, and yet how often do we, as Members of Parliament, see people in our advice surgeries who are suffering from mental illness? People come to see us who literally may not have spoken to another person in the two weeks since they were last at our surgeries. People come to see us who are confused, worried about their medication or concerned about their treatment and records. With respect to the doctors in the House, none of us can deal with such problems, but we see that there is a real need in terms of mental health care, and it is increasing. In policy terms, we must not steer clear of the issue but, instead, move closer to it.
	For centuries, people with mental health were locked away in Bedlam, in asylums and in institutions, and were forgotten. Now, according to Sane, the mental health charity, one in four of us will suffer some form of mental illness in our lifetimes. We should reflect on that.
	We should welcome the more open interest in mental health issues in our society. There is an acceptance of the reality of mental handicap and mental illness that perhaps was not there 10 or 20 years ago. There is an increasing refusal to accept the traditional mind-body split, which implies that each could be treated separately. There is a greater contemporary emphasis on holistic approaches to mental and physical health.
	The mental institutions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred were closed in an attempt to provide care in the community. I worked in one such institution, in Meanwood Park, and I concur with my hon. Friend; they were not the right places for most of the people who were there. The problem was that when care in the community was introduced, there was neither care, in terms of back-up support services, nor community, in the sense of welcoming someone or offering local neighbourhood support. That left sufferers more isolated, neglected and unsupported than anyone else in society. The funding did not follow the mental health patient, as we were told it would at the time.
	I welcome what has happened since then—for example, the Government's plan to increase the priority and significance of mental health, and the increase in investment. I welcome the work to tackle the problem of homelessness. We have a public information campaign and we have heard the announcement of a draft Bill, which deserves full consideration and wider public debate.
	In my constituency, the health authority informs me that the rate of schizophrenia in our inner-city area is significantly higher than in other communities in Leeds. That will include post-natal depression, elderly people with dementia and Alzheimer's, people with phobias and people with eating disorders. However, people suffering from mental illness tend to end up at the bottom end, in privately rented terraced housing, small single bedrooms, low quality council housing and miscellaneous properties. They get the worst deal of all and they are up against it in trying to survive from day to day.
	I spent a day with the Leeds community mental health trust, visiting day centres and talking to mental health workers and specialists working with those suffering as a result of alcohol and drug abuse. I also talked to patients. I would recommend such a visit to other colleagues, as it was worth while. I recall a young mother at one of the centres who told me that the centre was the only place that she could go where nobody judged her. That was important. We have heard the word "sanctuary" used earlier. Sanctuary is not only a place, but an attitude of mind towards others who feel that they are often accused, blamed, marginalised, dismissed and then written off.
	One of the great innovations of the Government has been the reform of the NHS through the introduction of primary care trusts. We have to make sure that the variety of preventive health and social services, designed as a dynamic, supportive local network, work in practice and that each primary care trust gets an adequate budget to follow plans through at a local level. We can get agreement on priorities and objectives, and we can assess the needs. But if we assess that the local surgeries need eight mental health staff, it is not enough to provide funding for two, as has happened in Leeds, West. There are recruitment problems, but that is not all. We need to ensure that resources get to the front line locally. I hope that Ministers and the Department will continue to monitor in detail the reform processes that they have set in train to ensure that that happens.
	I want to refer to three policy matters that we must take much more seriously. Colleagues have referred to prisons, and Armley prison is in my constituency. Some 80 per cent. of people in that prison suffer from mental illness and/or drug dependency and alcohol problems. Ten prisoners there today out of 1,247 have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Care in the community has come to mean, for many, care in custody.
	I welcome the fact that Armley prison is one of the 10 prisons piloting the Government's new mental health in-reach approach. However, the scheme has been going for three months and has a team of seven; it should be nine. We need to follow this through so that the work of the Home Office and the Department of Health are linked. I also wish to refer to outreach, because we must ensure that when a prisoner leaves prison with mental health needs, he is followed through and receives support within the community.
	I was involved in the establishment of the all-party group on epilepsy, which is well supported across the House. Some 500,000 people in Britain suffer from epilepsy. There was a report recently on people who have suffered sudden and unexpected death as a result of epilepsy, and it revealed that they were usually young adults. I thank the Minister for the reply that I received to my parliamentary questions of 20 June, in which she welcomed the national central audit of epilepsy-related deaths. The Department has promised to consider the recommendations and to develop a strategy and plan by September of this year. It is important that we treat epilepsy in the same way as diabetes, for example, and not leave it as a Cinderella illness. In the past, people with epilepsy were locked away in mental institutions.
	May I make a plea for more attention to be paid to a real crisis area—that of suicides among young men? I have recently come across three such cases—in two cases suicide was attempted, in the third, tragically, the suicide was carried through. Will the Department of Health use its research resources to look at that policy and take it forward? The mental health needs of young men in an increasingly pressured and high-speed world are paramount.
	Finally, proper support, assistance and treatment needs to be followed through to help people help themselves. That implies that the wider community assists as well, which means that the care plans referred to in the draft Bill will be vital. With proper back-up and the involvement of patients, they could be the focus and centre of the Bill. As a result, we might not fear mental illness as we have in the past but, as a society and through our institutions, we could properly care for sufferers and at last treat them as equal citizens in our society, as we treat anyone else with health needs.

Peter Viggers: Time is very limited, but I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate.
	There is a wide range of mental health problems, including anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, dementia, depression, eating disorders, mood disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, personality disorders, psychotic disorders—including schizophrenia—self-harm, sleep disorders, stress disorders and substance abuse. I am sure that all of us, at various times, have come across those problems in our constituencies. Mental handicap, of course, has its own special problems. One is aware of the love and affection that people with special needs engender in their carers and next of kin.
	We must remember that mental illness does not affect a different category of person. As has already been pointed out, one in four of the population suffers from some form of mental illness—and that definition does not even take into account questions of mental fitness. All of us are less than mentally fit at various times. Like physical illness, mental illness should be regarded as a normal part of life. However, that does not mean that it is not stressful for all involved. We recognise that mental illness and lack of mental health impose immense stress and pressure on carers. I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to those who help people suffering from a mental health problem.
	In some cases, mental health problems can be extreme. It is extraordinary that one third of all young men between the ages of 16 and 18 who are sentenced in court are diagnosed with a primary mental disorder. It is even more extraordinary that 70 per cent. of prisoners have mental illness or suffer from drug abuse. That leads to two conclusions: first, there should be a major new initiative, involving the national health service, to care for the mental health of prisoners. The second conclusion, which is not directly related to this debate, is that we must reconsider the treatment of heroin abusers. Locking them up in prison cannot be the answer if they have access to heroin in prison, and leave prison with greater problems than they had when they entered it.
	In 1999 the Government promised to introduce a mental health Bill. It took until December 2000 to produce a White Paper, and now we have a draft Bill, which I welcome. I also welcome the Secretary of State's response to my submission that when the Bill has had a Second Reading—I am sure that we all wish it well on that occasion—it should be sent to a Special Standing Committee, so that all the issues can be considered on a non-partisan basis. The Bill would effectively go before a Select Committee, during which members of the Committee could cross-examine experts and form a view before considering it in a Standing Committee. That would be entirely appropriate.
	The problems in the national health service include a shortage of psychiatrists, an acute shortage of psychiatric beds, a shortage of social workers in psychiatry and a shortage of people who can treat the large number of people who suffer from dementia. About 5 per cent. of those over 65 suffer from dementia, as do 20 per cent. of those over 80. Those elderly people are unlikely to see a psychiatrist at all.
	My greatest sympathy is reserved for the young. In some cases of acute mental illness, young people have to wait a long time to see a psychiatrist. The waiting time in my constituency is 18 months. This is a matter of resources; we need more resources for psychiatrists, and the latest modern drugs.
	The time constraints are severe tonight, but I welcome the chance to have made this brief contribution. The debate will have served its purpose if it pushes the Government to give a higher priority to mental health services, and helps all of us to regard mental health care as an important part of the national health service that is worthy of debate and support.

Lynne Jones: Today's debate has been interesting and enlightening. I agree with many of the comments made by previous speakers, and congratulate the Conservative party on making mental health the subject of this Opposition day debate.
	There is much consensus between Government and Opposition on this issue. It was, after all, a Conservative Secretary of State for Health who coined the term "spectrum of services", acknowledging that there had been a failure to put adequate services in place in the community. It is sad that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) did not acknowledge the failures of the Conservative Government. I agree with much of the Opposition's motion, but I am sad about its failure to acknowledge the positive progress that the Government have made. They have made the vision of the spectrum of services a reality by increasing the number of assertive outreach teams, improving talking treatments and psychology services and investing in the physical infrastructure in our acute wards.
	There will be considerable investment in new mental health services in Birmingham. An acute hospital that is not very old is to go. It was provided in the late 1980s, and when I went there, I was appalled at the lack of therapeutic atmosphere in the building. It was a very constrained building that had obviously been subject to a great deal of cost cutting. At last we will get new services; many will be for in-patients, provided locally rather than at the main hospital base. The Government are making that investment. The Conservatives are right to say that we have a long way to go, but it is churlish not to acknowledge that great progress is being made.
	I have not yet had an opportunity to look at the draft Bill, but I welcome its publication. I agree with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that it should be subject to Special Standing Committee procedure. It is now nearly 20 years since the last major piece of mental health legislation. The draft Bill represents the opportunity of a lifetime, and we must ensure that we get it right. We must ensure that we balance the emphasis on public protection—which I think is over-emphasised—with people's right to receive appropriate care. That right is not in place at present. Every time we use compulsion it is an indication less of failing in the individual than of failing in the services provided for people in need.
	The Government are initiating a 10-year programme to build up capacity. Goodness knows, more money is needed, and we must be vigilant in ensuring that money allocated for mental health services is not diverted to deal with other pressures. However, no matter how much money we put into services, it is also essential that we have enough staff with the necessary skills.
	We do not have enough staff at the moment. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health has pointed out that in the existing establishment, one in eight positions is vacant. If the ambitions of the Government, expressed in the national service framework and other plans, are to be realised, we shall need an additional 8,000 staff—a 12 per cent. increase.
	Psychiatry is a Cinderella service in more ways than one. It is not attractive to newly qualified graduates, and we need to ensure that it becomes more attractive. One reason why people shy away from mental health services is the culture of blame in our society, which creates problems in many services, including social work. Because of the stresses and strains on a service, things go wrong—and it is too easy to blame individual clinicians or social workers for their mistakes. That is not to deny that bad mistakes are sometimes made, or that there is some culpability. In many cases, however, people are working against the odds and we should acknowledge that.
	We must deal with the blame culture, and we should move away from too much emphasis on public protection. The only time there is any great publicity or press interest is when a tragic event, especially homicide, occurs. In that context, it is commendable that the Opposition have initiated a debate on mental health when that type of public interest is not current. It is also commendable that they have adopted mental health as one of their priorities; it is already a priority for the Government, so there is much consensus, on the basis of which we can move forward.
	At the last meeting of the all-party mental health group, we discussed mental health appeal tribunals. We heard about patients who had to wait more than 20 weeks for their case to be reviewed by a tribunal. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has pointed out that the process is extremely staff-intensive. A mental health appeal tribunal chair told the all-party group about the constraints on the tribunal service, including the shortage of psychiatrists to serve on the panels and the fact that the psychiatrists who have to provide reports for the tribunal are over-stretched.
	The White Paper proposed automatic referral to a mental health tribunal after 28 days of compulsory treatment; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that the Bill would include such a provision. There is concern, however, that even more psychiatric time will be taken up in dealing with the process, so there is a danger that there will be even more delays in the system. The Government need to consider that point.
	Although there is consensus among us, omitted from many contributions to the debate was the need to make the experiences of users of the service central to its provision. We should have respect for them and involve them in decisions about their care. A survey carried out by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship showed that a quarter of mental health service users did not even have the opportunity to discuss their medication, while 62 per cent. said that there was no discussion of any possible alternative.
	I am pleased to acknowledge the report produced recently by NICE, which made it clear that the choice of anti-psychotic drugs should be made jointly by the patient and the clinician. The report also noted that the use of atypicals should be a primary consideration, and there should be an end to postcode prescribing of such drugs. Compliance with medication is an important issue, and the use of the more modern drugs must be more widespread. Those drugs are not new; they came out 10 years ago, and it is one of the great failures of our service that they were not taken up.
	Advance directives should have higher status; they should be given statutory recognition. If treatment is to be compulsory, the people who make such decisions should take into account the wishes of patients, who should have had the opportunity to express those wishes when they had the capacity to do so. Consideration of such wishes should be a statutory obligation, and patients should be encouraged to carry crisis cards.
	The social security system is important to the well-being of mental health service users. I urge Ministers in the Department of Health to ensure that they have input to the development of services by the Department for Work and Pensions. Compulsion causes great stress to people who are already suffering from mental ill health. I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1345, which notes the poor availability of benefits to long-term patients, who receive only about £15 a week. The chief executive of the mental health trust in my area has pointed out that she has to use valuable trust resources to subsidise patients who cannot afford such basic needs as haircuts and shoes.
	Carers are important. Too often, confidentiality is given as an excuse for excluding them. Obviously, if a service user expressly wishes to exclude relatives, that wish should be respected—although questioned. However, family members are too often excluded by default, because clinicians and service providers do not discuss the needs of the whole family with the service user. We must give greater priority to the involvement of carers. People who suffer from mental ill health, as well as those who suffer from personality disorders—the distinction is sometimes blurred—have often experienced trauma in their lives, and family members can help to provide support and enlightenment.
	We need joined-up services. We need good services that take into account the fact that many mentally ill people also suffer from alcohol or drug abuse. Too often, services are either not provided at all or are provided separately, without appropriate links.
	More and more health and social services are being provided through partnership arrangements. However, that means that when people want to complain about a service, there is no single point of reference. The local government ombudsman deals with complaints about social services, while the health service ombudsman deals with complaints about the health service. Will the Government consider appointing an ombudsman specifically for mental health service users and their carers?
	Much has been said about stigma. We will not be able to give priority to mental health services until we deal with the stigma. The hon. Member for Woodspring began by saying that in mental health we accepted services that would not be acceptable in any other aspect of health services, and he is right. Too often, people are afraid to speak out about their experiences; they hide their feelings under the carpet.
	One day, the shame attached to visiting a psychiatrist will be no greater than the feelings that people have when they visit any other medical practitioner. People will seek help when they need it. They will be able to talk about their experiences. Indeed, they will be proud of their ability to do overcome all the problems associated with mental ill health in our society. Their family members will not suffer the stigma of having someone with a mental illness in their families. The Government are putting in place the policies to achieve that, and we all have a role to play in ensuring that the day when people can talk about their experiences comes sooner rather than later.

Hywel Williams: I, too, welcome this debate. I have a long-standing interest in this issue; I am a former social worker, approved under the Mental Health Act 1983. May I say immediately that I was disappointed to find that clause 9(4)(b) of the draft mental health Bill notes that the applicants will not be approved social workers, but approved mental health professionals? When I looked at the explanatory notes, I saw that those approved mental health professionals are
	"to undergo training and have a set level of understanding of mental health legislation and in assessing the non-medical aspects of treatment."
	However, I see no reference to civil liberties or to non-discriminatory or non-oppressive practices, and that is a disappointment.
	I worked under the previous legislation—the Mental Health Act, which has already been mentioned—and I know very well the weaknesses of the mental welfare officer system applied under that Act. I also know very well the weakness in relation to the independence of mental welfare officers. We now have a once in a generation opportunity to reform mental health legislation. I welcome the draft mental health Bill and look forward to contributing to debates on it.
	Care in the community has not been the failure that some people claim. Care in the community has been underfunded. It has not been afforded sufficient priority, and the particular difficulties and opportunities of providing services in rural areas, of which I have great experience, have certainly not been properly addressed. However, it would be ludicrous not to accept that there have been failures, and we need to learn lessons from those mistakes. It is right to pay tribute to people, such as Mrs. Zito, who have suffered and to those who have done so much to draw attention to those failings and to remedy them.
	One can understand the Government's wish to consider the safety of the patient and others as a key factor. That is a key factor, but it is not the only one. Care in the community is, and will remain, the first choice most of the time for most of the people with mental health problems. That is a matter of practicality, as well as one of principle.
	I hope that some of my concerns will be addressed in the legislation and the developments that flow from it. I am concerned about the quality and the quantity of services in rural areas. After all, we are seeking equality of service throughout the United Kingdom. There are particular costs and difficulties in rural areas—for example, in gaining access to day facilities and to proper assessments if and when compulsory measures are considered. Any new legislation must take account of those issues; it must not be framed only with the urban context in mind. Securing equity of service to rural dwellers requires substantial additional investment in rural services, and we will look for assurances about that specific extra investment from the Government.
	Lastly—I should say that I have heavily edited my speech, but hon. Members will have the benefit of hearing my opinions at another time—I am particularly concerned about language issues. I share that concern with hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom where there is a measure of societal bilingualism, such as parts of Scotland, and with black and ethnic communities, where many people who could be subject to compulsory mental health treatment may not speak English as their first language, if they speak it at all.
	Proper communication is essential to a proper assessment. In fact, the 1983 Act requires that social workers interview patients in a suitable manner. However, the code of practice under that Act clearly takes an ability to speak English as the given context. Other languages are seen as just that—they are other—despite the Welsh Language Act 1993, under which Welsh and English are treated equally. The code of practice apparently suggests that the answer to language problems is to find an interpreter.
	Most Welsh or Scots Gaelic speakers can also speak English, but when dealing with highly personal problems, such as mental health issues, they would prefer to use their own chosen language. I am sure that that is the case for speakers of so-called ethnic languages. If I were suffering from a mental health problem, I would need an interpreter, although I think that I am perfectly capable of conducting myself in English. I would prefer to be interviewed in Welsh, and I am sure that that would be infinitely more productive.
	Any new legislation and any new code of practice must respond to that issue and ensure that own-language provision becomes easily accessible, which involves rights to advocacy and assessment. Welsh should be used on the same basis as English in the mental health services without remark or hinderance, and I hope that the Minister will give an assurance on that in summing up.

Valerie Davey: I will be brief and just make one main point. The basic premise on which I approach health matters is that prevention is better than cure. I want to refer to the work that the Government have started—I hope that it will continue—with young people. Taking up the theme that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) touched on, I contend that prevention work would be best applied to that issue. No one wants to label such children. I am thankful that relatively few children need acute treatment, but we must not ignore those who do, and the Channel 4 television programme, "Young Minds", has recently added to our awareness of the issue.
	Last week, a small group of hon. Members from the Select Committee on Education and Skills visited a remarkable school in Moscow, where, among other things, we met a permanent member of staff—a psychiatrist. The work that she does with not only individual children but the parents, families and the community at large, as well as 200 other teachers, spoke to us of a very important role. She is working with other such people in Denmark and Belgium, but not in Britain. We could learn lessons from that preventive work.
	Those with serious mental illness often say that their childhood experiences have led to their developing mental illness later in adulthood. So, in working with children, we should be more aware of the climate in schools, families and communities that leads to mental health, and I ask the Minister, given her previous work, to link up with the work on health that is being done in the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that, to echo the words of the Government amendment, there will indeed be "new services for children".

Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate on what everyone has agreed is an important and topical subject. Let me first refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). It is true that concentration on children's services and early intervention are vital, which is one reason for the reference to early intervention in the motion.
	The great frustration for the party in opposition is that all its members can do is talk about issues. Part of the privilege of standing at the other Dispatch Box is the ability to do something. I agree with the Secretary of State that deeds, not words, count. Nevertheless, choosing the subjects to be debated can enable us to make a difference. Nearly everyone who has spoken today has agreed that simply by raising the subject of mental illness the Opposition have done something worth while.
	As the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has said, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—Chairman of the Select Committee—has said, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) has said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has said, and as so many others have said, the stigma attached to the issue of mental health is one of the biggest obstacles to changing the way in which mental health services are delivered.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Wakefield that the old system of asylums was awful, and had to be changed. He defended care in the community, as did the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). I do not believe, however, that anyone could accept that that policy was implemented adequately. I have talked to carers and others who experienced its implementation. It is impossible to justify the inappropriate placing and the turning away of so many people, and the fact that the facilities they needed were not available. I still defend the liberation of tens of thousands of people who did not need to be in long-stay mental institutions, but we must recognise the realities of what happened.
	As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, we must recognise progress where the Government have achieved it. Today, after five years, we have a draft Bill on mental health. I am pleased that we have it, but five years is quite some time for us to wait for a change in the law that was promised so long ago. I am also pleased that it has now been decided that atypical medicines will be available to schizophrenics, but that too has been a long time coming. It has taken two years for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence alone to act.
	There has been progress. It is, however, the job of Oppositions to hold Governments to their word—which we are trying to do—and also to talk to those involved with mental health. It is our job to go and see what is best practice, what works and what does not, so that when the time comes for us to present our policies they are well informed and based on practice.

David Lammy: When will that be?

Oliver Heald: Unfortunately for us, we must wait three years, or possibly four, before we can sit on the other side of the House and present our policies; but I look forward to that day. I am determined that when it comes, our policy on mental health will be one of which we can be proud. The Secretary of State should not be complacent.
	We have important questions about the Bill, and we want answers. We want to know whether the compulsory treatment in the community to which the Bill refers means that medication will be given only in a hospital setting. The Bill mentions a clinical setting. What exactly does that mean?
	What is the effect of the changes made since the White Paper to treatability and the definition of mental disorder? Do they mean, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), that those with personality disorders will be detained indefinitely, or can the Minister promise us that reassuring new safeguards have been introduced? Will she also answer a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)? What will the Bill do to improve arrangements for the transfer of those with mental illness from prison to more suitable settings? That is one of the major issues of the day.
	Then there is the issue of sanctuary. Let us not forget the experiences described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). He told us of a tragedy in his constituency involving a triple suicide. Such incidents make us realise what a priority mental health is when vulnerable people are at risk. I welcome the Government's target of a 20 per cent. reduction in the number of suicides over 10 years, but the fact is that the number has risen by 1 per cent.
	The Secretary of State is right to be pleased about movement on crisis resolution teams, but halfway through the period he identified—2000 to 2004—there are 52 of them. He promised that by 2004 there would be 335. He is nowhere near halfway there, at the halfway stage. He promised that there would be 77 more this year. Will there be? He promised that there would be 50 early intervention teams by 2004. So far there are 16. He is not halfway there, but he is halfway through the time. Only 4 per cent. of local teams have established complete services of the sort that was promised. The Audit Commission has complained that less than half the number of specialist teams for the elderly are present in the areas where they are needed.
	We were promised 700 extra workers to give carers respite. As far as we know, none have been appointed. We were promised 1,000 new primary care workers; there is not even a system enabling those who are there to be counted. The Secretary of State laughs. The fact is that he promised that by 2004 every prisoner would be seen and given a care plan on leaving prison. Here we are in 2002, and what has the Secretary of State done? He has changed the target: he now says that that will happen by 2006. We were told that there would be such services in every prison. In fact the Government aim to provide them in only 70 prisons—70 out of 136—by 2004. That cannot mean "every prisoner".
	There are gaps in provision. Where is the money going? Day by day, we hear that money is not reaching the front line—money that was promised. We know that last year £10 million promised for child mental health was simply reallocated for general expenditure. We heard in the Chamber recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that Wiltshire faces cuts. Some of us attended a recent event organised by the Zito Trust, where its latest report on prescribing was to be unveiled. A consultant from Shropshire said that he faced cuts there as well. We have been lobbied about cuts in Manchester, and we have heard evidence of cuts in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and North Cumbria.
	It is all very well for the Secretary of State to twit me and say that we have had some extra services in North Hertfordshire. I am grateful for that and so are my constituents, but we are still two consultants short. Whatever area the Secretary of State mentions, he does not give the complete picture. He says that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has been given extra services, but the hospital is being closed. Right across the country the money is not getting through. It is no good having targets if they are not met.
	It is the Opposition's job to do what I am doing now—to push the Government, and make them keep their promises on mental health. We have a duty to do that, because we are talking about trying to help the most vulnerable members of society. I want the new Bill to recognise that carers and other users of the system want conditions allowing them, as far as possible, to consent to treatment. We will read the Bill carefully, but the Secretary of State should be in no doubt about this: we want a Bill that will improve conditions for those who experience the tragedy of mental ill health, and that is not what the White Paper promised originally. If the Secretary of State has moved in our direction, we shall be pleased.
	Above all, the issue is about human rights as well as money. When it comes to preferences for treatment, we want the Bill to ensure that patients and carers are at the centre of what is proposed and planned. We want the mental health sector to have the dignity that for so long it has not had. That means that when people suffering from mental health problems present themselves at hospital, they will not be turned away—as happens in one out of three cases at the moment.

Jacqui Smith: Like other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I am grateful for the opportunity that it has afforded to focus the House's attention on this very important topic. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health pointed out, it has been high on the Government's agenda since we first published the "Modernising Mental Health Services" White Paper in 1998.
	I hope that it has been apparent in the debate that the Government share the concern expressed by Opposition Members and many other hon. Members about those in society who suffer from mental health problems. The concern is shared by hon. Members of all parties, but although I do not want to cast aspersions on the conversion of Opposition Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) described compassionate Conservatism as apparently having no roots. Given the numbers of Opposition Members present, it does not have many branches either.
	The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was right to express concern about homeless people who also have mental health problems. I remind him that it was not a Labour Minister who described the difficulty of stepping over the homeless to get into the opera. The Opposition's conversion to concern about the vulnerable and people with mental health problems is relatively recent.
	We share the concerns of those who have expressed their anxiety about mental health problems. However, we do not share the analysis of the causes.

Michael Spicer: Will the Minister accept that a Labour Minister started the process of closing mental hospitals on a large scale in the 1970s? That happened to the detriment of my constituency, where two mental hospitals were closed in the 1970s.

Jacqui Smith: In fact, the hon. Member for Woodspring—in a rare mood of contrition—claimed that a Conservative Government were responsible for that, and apologised for it.
	We share Opposition Members' concerns about mental health services, but we point the finger at the decades of underinvestment by the previous Administration. That led to crumbling buildings, demoralised staff and inadequate treatment. We inherited that legacy of neglect when we came to power, and we have been addressing it with vigour ever since.
	We set out our agenda in 1998. Our aim was to modernise mental health care and social care, to provide new investment for reform and to ensure a modern legal framework to support effective treatment outside as well as inside hospital. We are delivering on that agenda.
	All over the country, services are being reconfigured to meet the standards set out in the national service framework for mental health, to ensure better and faster care for people with mental health problems. New community teams have been established, and there are more staff and improved acute in-patient care. Of course, the scene will not be transformed overnight, and we would all like services to progress further and faster. However, across the nation, local implementation teams and front-line staff are working hard to improve mental health care. We do them a grave disservice if we fail to recognise how far they have come already, given the low base from which they had to start.
	We are investing in mental health services, with £329 million set aside to support our NHS plan commitments. That money for the future was described by Opposition Members as "reckless" when we first allocated it, and they voted against it. With the draft mental health Bill that we published today, we have started the process that will lead to the 21st century legal framework that we need to underpin 21st century services.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raised concern—

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No. [Interruption.] There is a limited amount of time left, and I want to make progress.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon rightly emphasised that mental health legislation needs to strike a careful balance between the protection necessary for patients and the public, and the safeguards that are in place. I can reassure him that we will continue to develop services in the community to ensure that the provision exists and is covered by modernised legislation.
	I do not understand where the claims by the Royal College of Psychiatrists about the extra consultants needed for tribunals come from, but I am willing to work with the royal college to ensure that the tribunal plans work effectively.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) rightly emphasised the need for closer integration of the NHS and social services departments. I am sure that, like me, he welcomes the fact that three out of four of the first care trusts in the country are focusing on mental health services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield also emphasised the need to move out patients who no longer need to be in high-security hospitals. We are making progress on our target to move 400 patients out of special high-security hospitals and into more appropriate care.
	My hon. Friend also raised the important point about the tension between non-stigmatisation and the Bill's efforts to deal with the most severely ill. When hon. Members look at the Bill in more detail, they will see that it balances its broad definition of mental disorder with tight conditions, and that it massively increases the safeguards for patients. I believe that the Bill strikes the correct balance between the protection of patients and the need to safeguard their rights.
	Several hon. Members spoke about the need for greater user involvement. I agree with them, and massive advances are taking place around the country in user involvement in the development of services.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) spoke about the principles underlying the Bill. The code of practice will set out the principles and their application.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No.
	Those principles will be that patients will be involved in decisions about their care, that the decision maker will have to demonstrate the minimum level of intrusion, and that decisions need to be taken in a fair and open way. I can assure the hon. Member for Caernarfon also that the role of the approved mental health professional will be covered in the necessary training.
	The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and others raised the issue of suicide. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West highlighted the high incidence of suicide among young men. The Government are undertaking consultation on a national suicide strategy, with active proposals to tackle the problem. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West about the emphasis on primary care.
	The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) rightly emphasised the wide spectrum of mental disorders, and spoke about child and adolescent mental health services, which were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). I agree that we need to ensure that the extra £105 million invested in child and adolescent mental health services develops those very specialist services. I can also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West that the work that the Department is carrying out already with the Department for Education and Skills continues. We aim to ensure that the links between professionals to support young people are forged at school level and at local level. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) rightly recognised the progress made, and also emphasised the need for more staff. Users have a particularly important role to play, especially as support, time and recovery workers.
	Mental health is at the heart of the Government's investment and reform in the health service. All of us will have been touched by mental health problems in ourselves, in our families and in our friends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, many will successfully recover and help to challenge the stigma and discrimination that have too often blighted patients' experience and service development.
	Today, the Opposition have pledged plenty of sympathy and even some contrition, but no policy and no money. That is why they can never deliver better mental health services, and why they can never be trusted to support the ill and the excluded in our communities: only this Government can, and only this Government will. I commend our amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 317.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House expresses its deep concern at the plight of those who suffer mental ill-health and notes that almost every family will have experience of some form of mental illness; notes the decades of under-investment which led to crumbling buildings, demoralised staff and inadequate treatment under the Conservative Government which left many of the most vulnerable in society without the care they need; supports this Government's investment in NHS mental health services to ensure better and faster care for people with mental health problems, including new community teams, more staff, improved acute care and new services for children; supports the full implementation of the Mental Health National Service Framework to ensure national standards are in place for the care and treatment of mental illness; recognises the massive contribution of carers and the Government's action to support them, and commends the Government's 'mind out for mental health' campaign to tackle stigma; and believes that improving mental health services should remain a key Government priority.

Zimbabwe

Michael Ancram: I beg to move,
	That this House deplores the deteriorating political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe; condemns the continuing violations of basic human rights committed by the Mugabe regime; reaffirms the view that following the rigged presidential election in March the current Zimbabwean government lacks legitimacy; regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government and the EU to implement sanctions and exert effective pressure on the Mugabe regime to hold new free and independently monitored presidential elections; recognises the growing politically-induced humanitarian suffering in Zimbabwe, and its effects on her neighbours; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take effective action to build an international coalition to apply whatever pressure is necessary, in line with the Harare Declaration, to restore democracy in Zimbabwe through fresh Presidential elections.
	This debate should have taken place a long time ago, and it should also have taken place in Government time. Zimbabwe is not a far-off land about which we know little; it is a land that we know all too well. Zimbabwe is in crisis. Her people are suffering—suffering from starvation, suffering from a breakdown in the rule of law, suffering from the loss of basic democratic freedoms, suffering from a systematic violation of human rights and suffering from a vote-rigging despot who uses intimidation and lawlessness to impose his will upon his people.
	If we were talking about Kosovo or Bosnia, the Prime Minister would rightly insist on our moral duty to intervene to save the people from tyranny, dispersal and torture. If we were talking about the Indian sub-continent, the Foreign Secretary would be jetting in to exercise persuasion and economic muscle to restore normality. If we were talking about the middle east, prime ministerial envoys would be whistle-stopping around the region seeking support for political action to deal with the crisis. But we are talking about Zimbabwe, yet from the Government there has been silence and inaction.
	Until Question Time this afternoon, there had been no recent statements in the House on Zimbabwe and there has been no evidence of the creation of the international coalition to bring pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime that was promised by the Foreign Secretary when he told the House that an international coalition was
	"exactly what we have been seeking to put together and have, indeed, put together."—[Official Report, 21 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 449.]
	He could have fooled me. He certainly fooled the people of Zimbabwe.
	It is starkly indicative that it has taken the Opposition to bring this matter to the Floor of the House. I have accused the Government of dithering over Zimbabwe, but I confess that I am wrong. Since March, there has not been enough action to merit the description "dithering." There has only been silence, broken astonishingly last week on 20 June when the Foreign Secretary claimed, as he did earlier today, that sanctions were working and that Zimbabwe's Government were experiencing—I think these are the words he used—isolation from the rest of the world. Who does he think he is kidding? Certainly not the people of Gib—[Interruption]—Zimbabwe, or of Gibraltar; certainly not the people of Zimbabwe.
	Let me say to the Foreign Secretary that the people of Zimbabwe feel a sense of betrayal that Britain has turned its back on them and that it is afraid to take on the Mugabe regime. They see the Government ensconced in their well-practised mode of supine inaction. Many Zimbabweans to whom I have spoken recently believe that we no longer care about what happens in Zimbabwe. I can only tell them that Conservative Members care passionately.

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Michael Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman cares passionately, so I shall be delighted to give way to him.

Hugh Bayley: I have taken an interest in Zimbabwe for a long time. When the right hon. Gentleman's party were in power, Mugabe wiped out the opposition party, ZAPU, and 10,000 Zimbabweans were butchered in Matabeleland. What protests did the right hon. Gentleman's Government lodge; what sanctions did they apply; and why did they later invite Mugabe to Britain on a state visit?

Michael Ancram: I do not understand whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that is any reason to ignore what is happening in Zimbabwe today. I count 10 Labour Members in the Chamber for this debate, and that is a sign of how much the Labour party cares about what is happening in Zimbabwe.
	We know that the crisis in Zimbabwe is getting worse. It is important that not only the House but the country should know about what is horrifyingly growing unchecked in Zimbabwe. We cannot turn a blind eye to it and we cannot afford to be squeamish. Our motion refers to the
	"deteriorating political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe"
	and to
	"the continuing violations of basic human rights".
	The truth is stark. According to the report of the independent Physicians for Human Rights, between January and April this year, there were 961 documented cases of torture. There have been many more since then.
	Some of the cases are horrifying. A Movement for Democratic Change supporter was attacked three times. Eight months pregnant, she was kicked so badly in the groin and lower abdomen that she suffered internal bleeding for which she was prevented from getting treatment. Subsequently, her eight-day-old baby was physically abused by Mugabe's thugs while she was gagged to silence her screams. She was told by them that her baby should die because it was "MDC property".
	Documented cases of torture include severe beatings, mutilation by fire, whippings, permanent disfigurement and crippling, much of it taking place in the custody of the police or the military. One victim in May was abducted in front of the central police station in Bulawayo and taken to a militia camp. He was accused of being an MDC supporter. A flaming log was taken from a fire and forced against his feet. His mutilated feet were then beaten. A former policeman accused of being MDC was beaten about his head with a metal bar and then more generally with sjamboks by ZANU youth militia. When he complained to the police he was told:
	"anyone suspected of being MDC will be beaten up".
	The fact is that the police turn a blind eye to such torture and abuse, probably because more than 90 per cent. of such cases emanate from the actions of persons linked to the Government—the army, the police, the militia, the veterans groups. There is little fear of repercussions because the Government have let it be known that grants of clemency and amnesty will be forthcoming.
	An apologist for Mugabe told me the other day that I should not be too censorious about what was happening in Zimbabwe because "This was Africa". Such comments are a slur on that great continent. The abuse is not African; it is the abuse of a fascist dictatorship. The international community can no longer stand by and let it happen.
	After elections in March that were internationally judged to be rigged and stolen, the Foreign Secretary told the House:
	"we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy."—[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]
	I hope the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that that remains his position.

Jack Straw: Yes.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful for that. Mugabe and his henchmen have ridden roughshod over democracy in Zimbabwe. It is worth recalling that the principles of the 1991 Harare declaration—this is ironic—state:
	"We believe . . . in the individual's inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic processes in the society in which he or she lives".
	Yet two days after the elections, Mugabe laid formal charges of treason against the leaders of the MDC. Between January and August this year, the Parliament will have been closed for all but two days in May, when legislation was pushed through without consultation or debate.
	In terms of the law, Mugabe has ignored any rulings that did not suit him. On 9 April, a senior Government official, George Charama, said that it was the intention of the Government to ignore rulings by the court which were not in the Government's favour. The contemptuous Government reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that the Public Order and Security Act did not apply to certain internal meetings of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions only helps to corroborate that.
	Press freedom and freedom of expression are also under attack. The draconian Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act has already allowed the arrest of more than a dozen journalists on various charges. Poets, too, have been jailed under that legislation for poetry critical of Mugabe.
	Zimbabwe's economic outlook is even bleaker. The violent land-grabs continue. Yesterday, 60 per cent. of Zimbabwe's remaining white farmers were told to close down. Many of them will not even be allowed to complete the essential grading of the tobacco that used to provide 30 per cent. of Zimbabwe's foreign currency. Agricultural output has fallen 67 per cent. from last year. Farmers are being dispossessed and their labourers are losing their jobs and watching helplessly as their families face hunger and homelessness.
	Unemployment has soared to 70 per cent. Business closures are rife. Everyone is suffering except for those who are in Mugabe's pocket. Inflation has now reached 122 per cent. Skilled people are leaving Zimbabwe. Wildlife, so essential to the tourism industry, has been devastated, including the rare black rhino. The dire economic crisis is beginning seriously to damage neighbouring economies as well.
	Then there is the Mugabe-created and fuelled humanitarian crisis. Some 6 million people face malnutrition in Zimbabwe. The United Nations estimates that Zimbabwe needs 1.5 million tonnes of food aid, including 1.3 million tonnes of corn. Mugabe cynically and dishonestly blames the white imperialists, but the blame lies firmly on his shoulders. He is even blocking grain imports from the port of Beira.
	Home production has been devastated by the land-grabs. Andrew Meikle, chairman of Commercial Grain Producers, projects a harvest of only 498,000 tonnes this year compared with 1.47 million last year and 2.1 million in 2000. Wheat is expected to run out by the end of the month. The crisis is massive and it is politically induced. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) will have more to say on that in her winding-up speech.
	The horrifying truth is that Mugabe is using starvation as a political tool. He is primarily responsible for his people's hunger. The PHR report vividly describes how the feeding plan in Midlands school has been altered to keep MDC children from obtaining food. A ZANU-PF councillor is chillingly reported as having said:
	"even if stone was to melt, MDC children will not get the food because it is ZANU food".
	While our Government may say little, others have spoken out. USAID head, Andrew Natsios, describes Mugabe as tyrannical and predatory. Mary Robinson, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, has accused Mugabe of being primarily responsible for the hunger and deprivation afflicting Zimbabwe. Mugabe may blame drought, but the truth is that his people go hungry alongside full dams with the waters unexploited.
	We must make no mistake about it: the crisis and the evil are real, and real international action is urgently needed. It simply does not wash for the Foreign Secretary to say, as he did at Question Time today, that action is being taken. The right hon. Gentleman has to answer some central questions. What has exclusion from the councils of the Commonwealth achieved? How many meetings has Zimbabwe been excluded from? Will it still attend the Commonwealth games at the end of next month? Will any Zimbabwean Ministers attend those games? What message will that give to Mr. Mugabe?
	Then there are the EU targeted sanctions which the Foreign Secretary apparently believes are isolating the Zimbabwean Government. I thought that Mugabe and senior members of his regime were supposed to be banned from travelling. In the words of the Foreign Secretary in January, that policy was "clear, unanimous and unambiguous"—so clear, apparently, that Mugabe was able to attend the United Nations in New York; so unanimous that Grace Mugabe was recently able to go shopping in Spain; and so unambiguous that police chief Augustine Chihuri was able to attend a meeting of Interpol in Lille in May, and Mugabe, with offensive irony, was able to attend a UN conference on world hunger in Rome a few days ago. Dr. Olivia Muchena, Minister of State in the Vice-Presidents' office, a former Deputy Minister of Agriculture, is allowed to travel at will. Kumberai Kengai, ex-Minister of Agriculture, is receiving medical treatment in the United Kingdom. Why is the travel ban list not comprehensive? The asset freeze includes Mugabe, individual members of the Government of Zimbabwe and any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them. But only 20 individuals are named in the travel ban.
	It is time that the Government faced the facts. EU targeted sanctions are not working. The author of the recent International Crisis Group report described the sanctions as a joke. He went on to say:
	"Britain and the EU talk tough and do nothing. They threatened Mugabe that if he stole the election they would come down hard on him. Mugabe must be laughing at them."
	What an indictment!
	The sanctions regime needs to be strengthened both in scope and extent; it needs to encompass more targets; and it needs to be given more bite. I would like the sanctions regime to include the immediate families of those who are on the banned list. Why has the EU perversely postponed further consideration of such an urgently needed review of the sanctions until 22 July? Ministers met—what was it, a week and a half ago? Did they not consider at that time whether the sanctions were working? Last week's General Affairs Council conclusions contained one page about Zimbabwe and not a single action point.
	The Government have lost the plot on Zimbabwe. The overriding objective must now be to secure new, fresh, independently monitored presidential elections. Any fudged and artificial compromise between ZANU-PF and the MDC that falls short of that would be a victory for Mugabe's dishonesty and his despotic behaviour, and the MDC are right to reject it.

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend has said a lot about the EU, but is this matter not also a test for Africa? Today, the G8 is discussing in earnest the New Partnership for Africa's Development. If NEPAD is to have any substance or meaning, surely the heads of Government of other African states should bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a test of whether NEPAD will work for Africa.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I intended to make a little later in my remarks. I fully agree with him. The coalition I mentioned could bring pressure to bear on NEPAD's African members to exert pressure through NEPAD. I think that that would have a substantial effect, so it is one of the things that we would like to see being done in the coming days.
	We should no longer expect Mugabe to listen to reason. He mocks the British Government's rhetoric and the Prime Minister's high moral pronouncements. He now believes that he can literally get away with murder and that we will not react, but I tell the House that the time has come when we have to act. Of course we should not try to act alone: we have to build a powerful international coalition to meet the challenges of what is now an incipient rogue state. With ourselves, such a coalition should include the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth and, most important of all, South Africa and its neighbours, along with Nigeria.
	The coalition's objectives should be the re-running of the presidential elections, democratically conducted and independently monitored and refereed, if necessary involving further talks between ZANU-PF and the MDC to negotiate the means of setting such elections in process. The coalition must be strong and cohesive enough to exert on Mugabe the political, economic and, if necessary, military pressure needed to achieve its objectives. It must be bound together by an understanding that failure to deal with the crisis in Zimbabwe threatens the whole region and will make international economic support for the region less practicable.

Jack Straw: Just now the right hon. Gentleman mentioned military pressure, and in his preliminary remarks he made a reference to Kosovo. Is he suggesting that we should either unilaterally or multilaterally take military action against the Mugabe regime?

Michael Ancram: No, I am not. At this stage I do not wish to rule anything in or anything out in judging what is necessary to bring sufficient pressure to bear on Mugabe to hold fresh elections. However, if the coalition is to be effective, it must have the means—whatever means are necessary—to achieve its objectives. For that reason, I mentioned the three areas of economic, political and military pressure very deliberately in that context.
	The coalition must have strong and clear aims. In African terms, it should aim to isolate Zimbabwe diplomatically if the violence and intimidation do not cease, and it should persuade countries such as Libya to cease the material help that they currently give to Zimbabwe, which only serves to encourage Mugabe. In Commonwealth terms, the coalition should seek to secure the implementation of the Abuja agreement of last September in respect of the rule of law in Zimbabwe and the proper transfer of land. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for International Development says, "We have tried," but I do not believe that we have tried hard enough. I want a coalition that can bring real pressure to bear. In EU and US terms, the coalition should extend targeted sanctions to directors and top officials in ZANU-PF affiliated businesses and strengthen the freezing of assets against them. The sanctions must be made effective in ways that they currently are not.
	At the same time, the coalition should make the public in southern African aware of current levels of corruption in Zimbabwe. It should implement the recommendation of the UN panel on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Congo to make Mugabe face up to the realities of Zimbabwe's crisis. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), at the G8 summit, progress on the NEPAD initiative should be linked to stronger and more credible efforts by African Governments to resolve Zimbabwe's crisis.
	The time for appeasement and empty rhetoric is over. Supine inaction must now be replaced by action—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary returns to his usual theme: in the past when I have called on the Government to stop talking and start doing, he has always responded by accusing me of offering no plan for action. If he had been listening for the past few minutes, he would have realised that I have laid out a clear pattern of action that a coalition can and should take.
	Time is running short. If disaster is to be averted, the Government can no longer afford to look the other way—the problem will not resolve itself. Hiding behind the alibi of our colonial past to excuse our inaction will no longer wash. Yet again, I call on the Government to cease the hand-wringing and the empty rhetoric, and to stand up against dictatorship for democracy and the rule of law.
	I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said at his party conference last October, when he told the country that he would heal the scars of Africa:
	"if Rwanda happened again today . . . we would have a moral duty to act there",
	and added that he would
	"not tolerate . . . the behaviour of Mugabe's henchmen".
	The Government must now demonstrate that the Prime Minister's words are more than mere rhetoric. Let us see action—and let us see it now, before it is too late.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"expresses its grave concern at the abuse of human rights and suppression of freedom of expression in Zimbabwe, the increase in poverty arising from the policies of the ruling party, and the impending humanitarian crisis in the country; reaffirms the view that the outcome of the recent Presidential election does not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people; recognises the need for Land Reform but also recognises that this needs to be done responsibly; welcomes the actions taken on Zimbabwe by Her Majesty's Government in co-operation with the EU, the Commonwealth, the US and others; further welcomes the efforts of the Governments of South Africa and Nigeria to facilitate dialogue between ZANU (PF) and MDC, and deplores ZANU (PF)'s withdrawal from these talks; further welcomes the Government's commitment of £32 million to humanitarian relief in Zimbabwe outside official channels; and calls on the Government to encourage other donors to stand by the people of Zimbabwe at this difficult time."
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the Opposition for organising this debate in Opposition time. The fact that it is the first Opposition debate devoted to a foreign affairs subject for two years illustrates the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman had in persuading his right hon. and hon. Friends in the shadow Cabinet to agree to it. That is emphasised by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition takes almost no interest in Zimbabwe or, indeed, in Africa.

Andrew Turner: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, of course I will not.
	The Leader of the Opposition has made only one foreign policy speech in the whole time that he has occupied that post—getting on for a year. In that speech, on foreign policy and the world, there is not a single reference to Zimbabwe, still less to the rest of Africa.
	The speech that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Devizes is long on indignation and almost wholly devoid of action. He says that his agenda for action beyond what we are already doing is to rule nothing in and to rule nothing out. I thought that he gave away his real interests when, in a slip of which Freud would have been proud, he said that not even the people of Gibraltar would be fooled by what we are doing. That illustrates only too well that he could as well have applied his speech to Gibraltar as to Zimbabwe, despite the entirely different circumstances.

Andrew Turner: How many people have been murdered in Gibraltar?

Jack Straw: None as far as I know—or if they have, the Gibraltar police have investigated. I merely point out the fact that the right hon. Member for Devizes made an extraordinary but highly revealing Freudian slip.
	What we heard today, and what we hear from the right hon. Member for Devizes each time the issue is raised, is the usual incantation in which he calls for the establishment of an international coalition, including members of the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United States and countries in southern Africa, to take effective action against the regime. When we have achieved exactly that—in the Commonwealth, with Zimbabwe's suspension, and in the EU, with targeted sanctions against the ruling party and the military—the right hon. Gentleman has scarcely been able to hide his disappointment.
	This morning, as he has so often done, the right hon. Gentleman made similar remarks on the radio to those that he made this evening, describing what is unquestionably a profoundly dire situation, and implying that all that rests between peace and harmony in Zimbabwe and the current circumstances is what he describes as inaction by the British Government. Would that that were the situation. When put on the spot, as the right hon. Gentleman was this morning, and asked what Britain could realistically do, given its history with Zimbabwe, he said:
	"I think we shouldn't try to do anything on our own . . . this is a situation which has wider implications than just within Zimbabwe."
	He went on to say:
	"I would like to see now an international coalition put together which would put pressure on Mr. Mugabe's regime and make sure that a number of things are done."
	What the right hon. Gentleman does, which is a deception of the good people of Zimbabwe, is to make the wish the deed. The wish is straightforward: that we move quickly to new elections, which are properly monitored at every stage and which Mugabe and his henchmen do not steal. The wish is that that regime have an agricultural policy which allows the farmers to do what they are dedicated to and skilled in—that is, planting and growing crops—rather than the current circumstance. The wish is that that regime sign up, in deed as well as in words, to the Harare principles and allow the judiciary to operate properly, observe human rights and ends the arbitrary arrest and detention of Opposition spokespersons and journalists.
	We share those wishes. The question is how they can be achieved. That can be only by an international coalition and international co-operation. I wish we could have gone further in some respects. The constraint is not the desire or the wish of the United Kingdom, but the need to ensure that we get together an international coalition.
	Let me remind the House of the steps that we are taking, both bilaterally and with our partners in the Commonwealth, the EU, the US and countries in the region to encourage reform and avert further disaster in Zimbabwe. Bilaterally, we have introduced a range of sanctions, including an arms embargo and a reduction in development assistance to the Government of Zimbabwe, to ensure that the regime cannot divert UK funds for its own ends.
	However, in recognition of the scale of the economic disaster engulfing the country, we have increased our own humanitarian relief to Zimbabwe, but our aid moneys go direct to impartial groups such as non-governmental organisations and Churches, ensuring that those most in need, rather than ZANU-PF insiders, benefit. In the past 12 months we have committed £10 million in humanitarian assistance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who will wind up the debate for the Government, announced last week £45 million of further assistance for the region, of which we expect almost half to go to Zimbabwe.
	Over the past 12 months, we have promoted international action against Mr. Mugabe's regime. I noticed that when my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) asked the right hon. Member for Devizes about the cosy relationship that existed under the Thatcher Government and, I may say, the Major Government, the right hon. Gentleman's answer was devoid of content. The record of the previous Government, once the noble Lord Carrington had ceased to be Foreign Secretary, was not altogether a creditable one, to put it mildly.
	That continued through the astonishing blindness that the previous Government showed in the mid-1980s when, as my hon. Friend said, 10,000 people in Matabeleland were slaughtered, and the reward that President Mugabe received for that was a state visit, which gave him the most astonishing endorsement of his actions. Much more recently, when the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was Foreign Secretary, throughout the period that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has held her post, and since I have held my present post, President Mugabe's principal complaint about the current Government was that we have not been easy to deal with—unlike the previous Government, we have been told repeatedly, who turned out to be remarkably easy to deal with. That is a charge to which I and my right hon. Friends are only too happy to plead guilty.

Andrew MacKay: The Foreign Secretary and I were both in the House in the mid-1980s. There is some merit in his criticism of the Government whom I served at that time, but I have a clear memory that there was next to no mention from those on the Opposition Benches of what was happening in Matabeleland. There was certainly no Supply day debate, and the only person who comes out of it with any credit is my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). We do not need any lessons from the Government on the dreadful tragedy of Matabeleland.

Jack Straw: As I have said before, the record of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is one which stands starkly in the House. He has taken a consistent approach to the matter, and I give credit to him, as I have done before. I admire the frankness of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) about the record of the previous Government, which stands in stark contrast to the attitude of the right hon. Member for Devizes, who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench on Foreign Affairs.
	As to our position, I am happy to go through the record, but I expect that it will transpire that we raised the issue at the time. It was the party of the right hon. Member for Bracknell who were in government, and they did nothing about it. Yes, we are in government now, and I shall run through the efforts that we have made in response to the flagrant breach by Mugabe and his people of the Harare principles, and the even worse humanitarian disaster into which the country is being plunged by that regime.
	We have strongly supported regional efforts led by South Africa and Nigeria to establish a dialogue between ZANU-PF and the opposition MDC. One of the critical things that we had to do was to end the myth that Mugabe had so cleverly perpetrated, that he was involved in a bilateral dispute between him, President Robert Mugabe, the leader of the freedom fighters in the whole of Africa, and the former unpleasant colonial power, the United Kingdom. It has taken considerable effort, persuasion and diplomacy by the British Government—particularly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and by my predecessor—which I have been happy to follow, to build up the confidence of the other African nations about our good faith in respect of Africa as a whole, and to assure the Governments, particularly the leading Governments such as South Africa and Nigeria, that we are doing that not as some post-colonial exercise, but out of our commitment to the peoples of Africa, whatever their race, colour or creed.
	In addition, the European Union has adopted a package of targeted sanctions against the leadership of ZANU-PF. The measures imposed in February this year include a travel ban, an assets freeze and a ban on arms sales. The EU applicant states, the United States, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand have since adopted similar measures, but in the case of the US, ones that do not go quite as far.

Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary accused me earlier of not having put forward any suggestions. I made a suggestion specifically about extending the list of those against whom sanctions would be applied. Can he confirm that that is his intention when he meets his EU colleagues again at the end of July?

Jack Straw: We will indeed review the operation of sanctions when we meet on 22 July. There is a strong case for an extension of the measures, but I will not give specific notice of what I have in mind, for the simple reason—[Interruption.] I am very happy to brief the right hon. Gentleman on the usual terms. The more specific notice that is given of what we have in mind, the easier it will be for the regime to take pre-emptive action. I would have thought that that was astonishingly obvious to everybody—apparently except him.
	Of course we want the sanctions to operate in the most effective way. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the fact that Mugabe and some of his people had attended a number of international meetings. That was made clear in the terms of the common position that the EU adopted earlier this year. When such common positions are overridden by treaty obligations such as those arising from the United Nations charter, the treaty obligations will take precedent. That is no different from what has happened with regard to the fact that the United States has imposed the most powerful sanctions against Cuba ever since Fidel Castro took power, and banned Fidel Castro and his Government from travelling to the United States. I wonder whether any Opposition Members know how many times Fidel Castro has travelled to New York in apparent breach of that ban in order to attend the General Assembly of the UN. If anyone would like to tell me the number, I shall happily give way.

Menzies Campbell: Forty.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman mentions that number from a sedentary position. [Hon. Members: "You sent him a note."] I will not tell hon. Members what the note said—[Interruption.] I am extremely happy, however, for the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) to see the note; indeed, it is being passed to him.

Michael Jack: rose—

Jack Straw: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman wants to give me the answer.

Michael Jack: I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has reduced this debate to an auction of information. I speak as somebody who does not know a great deal about this matter, but I am desperately worried about what constituents of mine who work in Zimbabwe are telling me about the situation there. They convey to me a sense of impotence and a feeling that whatever is contained in the list of sanctions appears currently to have no effect on Mugabe. We are currently facing the final takeover of white-owned farms. What comes next? More importantly, what advice has he received, especially from African leaders who might understand Mugabe better than we do, about what will make this man come to terms?

Jack Straw: That is the issue. Of course I understand the right hon. Gentleman's frustration; everybody shares a deep frustration. If only it were possible simply by wishing for an international coalition to end the damage that Mugabe is doing, it would be done. If it were possible to do "what happened in Kosovo", which the right hon. Member for Devizes airily cited as something that we should be doing in Zimbabwe, it would be done. However, it is irresponsible to cite that example as a criticism of the Government and the international community and neither to rule it out nor rule it in. Everybody knows that the suggestion that we embark on a bombing campaign, as we had to do in Kosovo for 78 days, comes from fantasy land, and it would be deceiving the people of Zimbabwe to pretend otherwise.
	The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) asked what would happen next; I will tell him. The situation is likely to go from a terrible situation to a worse one. That is the point that we are making powerfully to our partners, especially those elsewhere in Africa, so that they can increase the pressure that they are already exerting on the Mugabe regime and recognise that this is a disaster in which they have moral responsibility, just as we do, for the poor people of Zimbabwe and of the rest of southern Africa who are being so severely damaged by the regime.
	On the other point made by the right hon. Member for Fylde, it is worth while to embed in the minds of Opposition Members the issue about Fidel Castro. Tough sanctions have been taken by the United States in respect of Cuba, and Cuba is the first to say that they are tough. There is a travel ban on its leaders, but on 41 occasions, Fidel Castro, in apparent breach of those sanctions, has gone to New York to speak to the General Assembly of the UN.

George Howarth: At length.

Jack Straw: I am sorry to tell the House that I will speak at slightly less length than Fidel Castro can usually be expected to do in a short speech.
	The position on the sanctions imposed by the United States on Mugabe and the rest of the 20 is the same. They have been put to very considerable inconvenience and also humiliated, as they are not treated as visiting dignitaries or heads of state. As I mentioned in Question Time earlier today, we know from the criticism of them inside ZANU-PF that they are desperate for the sanctions to be lifted because we have gone to the heart of part of their corruption. I am offended by seeing Mrs. Mugabe going to Madrid, no doubt to spend thousands of pounds shopping while the people of Zimbabwe are starving. [Interruption.] I hope that the people of Zimbabwe find out about exactly what she is doing. Yes, I understand the point about the extension of the sanctions, but if we are to be effective, we must also ensure, as the right hon. Member for Devizes said, that we get other members of the European Union on board.

John Redwood: Surely the moral of the tale about the United States and Castro is that the sanctions did not work, as the United States did not get what it wanted by imposing them. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House some indication of what pressures he would like to place on this evil regime to get rid of the starvation, murders and bestiality if he could get all the partners that he needed in the coalition to agree with us? Will he set out to the House what he would like them to do that would bring this man to account?

Jack Straw: What I would like to happen is clear. I would like President Mugabe to recognise the error of his ways and the disaster into which he has plunged Zimbabwe. I would like him to leave office, allow elections to take place immediately, stop interfering with humanitarian relief, get the farmers, whether they are white, Indian or black, back on to the land, respect the rule of law and allow this wonderfully prosperous country—[Interruption.] I am asked how that would happen, but that is the point. I say to Opposition Members that the issue for the international community is how we do this. That is the truth of it. I have not sought at any stage to pretend that there is some magic wand waiting to be used.

David Borrow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we in this House need to have some recognition of what influence we can have in this situation and accept that Britain's role, however active and vigorous, will not solve the problems on its own? The key players in making changes in southern Africa are the neighbours of Zimbabwe, and the Republic of South Africa in particular. Without the Republic of South Africa moving, there is very little that he and his colleagues can do.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend's observation is accurate. To suggest that we could take action without an alliance and coalition from Africa, and South Africa in particular, would be a pretence, as such action would bilateralise the dispute, make us ineffective and make any international coalition almost impossible to achieve.
	One of the many things that we have done is to secure a situation whereby the decision on the suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth was taken not by us, not by the Commonwealth ministerial action group, of which the United Kingdom is a member, but by a troika of the current chair of the Commonwealth, Prime Minister Howard of Australia, and two key members—President Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Mbeki of South Africa. It is hugely to their credit that they made the decision that they did once the Commonwealth observers found that the elections had been neither free nor fair.

Richard Spring: As the Foreign Secretary knows, the G8 and NEPAD have a close relationship and there is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to raise this matter. What will he say to the G8 about bringing direct influence to bear on NEPAD to build the coalition to take the process forward?

Jack Straw: The Prime Minister will discuss Zimbabwe with his colleagues in the G8 and with African leaders. Last week, I had a long meeting with Foreign Minister Zuma of South Africa. All the African leaders understand the disaster into which Mugabe is plunging the continent, especially the sub-continent. If the leaders of South Africa, Nigeria and all the other countries in southern African thought that there was a magic wand for saving not only Zimbabwe, but southern Africa, they would have followed that through. One of the tragedies of the situation is not only what Mugabe has done to the Zimbabwean economy—gross domestic product declined by 10 per cent. last year, unemployment is running at 70 per cent., inflation stands at 122 per cent. and the industrial sector is collapsing—but the damage that is being done to the rest of southern Africa, including, in particular, South Africa. The decline of the rand—although it has recently improved, it went down by 31 per cent. in the past year—is almost wholly attributable to the damage done by the Mugabe regime.

Nicholas Winterton: The situation facing the wonderful people of that once prosperous country in central southern Africa is catastrophic. I receive daily e-mails and faxes about their suffering. Is it not time to consider different ways of tackling the problem? Earlier today, during Question Time, I floated an idea that was responded to, but not positively enough. Would not someone like the modern father of central southern Africa, Nelson Mandela, be a figure around whom a group of countries could bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe, and perhaps also on Libya, which continues to fund and to support Mugabe? If that were done, the international community, including Libya, could unite to bring about a change of Government in order to do something for the people of Zimbabwe, about whom I practically cry because of their suffering.

Jack Straw: I am happy to discuss the hon. Gentleman's proposal regarding the involvement of President Mandela. My own sense, which is shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, is that if President Mandela felt that he had been able to act as a positive intermediary in the situation, he would have done so. It is a lamentable commentary on Mugabe and his isolation that none of the offers of intermediation has positively been taken up. President Mbeki and President Obasanjo said that they would help to broker a constructive dialogue between ZANU-PF and the MDC, but that offer has so far been refused. However, I am happy to pursue the idea and to have it drawn to President Mandela's attention.
	Libya's route back into the international community partly depends on its showing a responsible attitude towards Zimbabwe and in respect of Sierra Leone. We are aware of that, and it is a point that has repeatedly been made to Libya in the dialogue that is taking place.
	I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I shall therefore shortly draw my remarks to a close. One of the excuses that Mugabe has used in respect of Zimbabwe is to blame the current famine entirely on drought. It is true that drought has played a significant part in the failure of the maize harvest, but there is no doubt that policy failures—not least the mismanagement of the exchange rate and the chaotic land reform programme—have greatly exacerbated the situation. That is illustrated by the following figures. The United Nations estimates that Zambia and Malawi, which have suffered similar droughts, have lost one quarter of their food production capacity, but that figure rises to three quarters in respect of Zimbabwe. The UN declares that
	"current government policies in Zimbabwe pose formidable constraints"
	to a resolution of the crisis. The UN World Food Programme estimates that as a result almost half the population—up to 6 million people—will be unable to meet their minimum food requirements in the next 12 months.
	The tragedy is that a year ago Zimbabwe still had a chance to return to the path of sustainable development. When I became Foreign Secretary a year ago, some of my first contacts were with my South African and Nigerian counterparts. At that time, we agreed there was still a prospect that Zimbabwe could rehabilitate itself. So last September at Abuja, Commonwealth Ministers, including myself, set out, with Mr. Mugabe's agreement, a clear road map for Zimbabwe—via the Harare principles—back to prosperity and international respect. Tragically, ZANU-PF did not grasp that opportunity. In the run-up to the presidential election, the regime pressed ahead with its land reform programme, intimidated and even killed members of the Opposition, and implemented further measures to curb freedom of speech. That culminated in a stolen presidential election, which compounded the country's isolation. Since then, the regime's actions—ranging from further restrictions on the media and harassment of the legal profession to further violence against the Opposition and intimidation of those who work in the farming sector—suggest that it has no plans to change course.
	That is why we have to continue, with international agreement where appropriate, to strengthen the measures taken against Zimbabwe. I say to the right hon. Member for Devizes, who asks me to advertise a long list, in advance of international agreement, of the measures that could perhaps be taken, that the only people who would be comforted by such a pre-emptive list would be members of the Mugabe regime—especially if it transpired, for various reasons, that it was not possible to ensure that each of the measures was implemented in full. I promise the House that we are aware of the continuing need to ensure that the existing measures that have been taken are made as effective as possible and that they are strengthened where appropriate.
	This debate takes place as world leaders in the G8 are gathering to agree, we hope and believe, a new partnership for African development—an area in which my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Prime Minister have been in the lead for some time.
	As far as the rest of Africa is concerned, it is worth noting that on the whole the story has been one of much better news than in Zimbabwe. Africa has huge problems—poverty, lack of educational and employment opportunities, hunger and low life expectancy are still the fate of many in African countries—but there are signs that democracy is taking root. In 1975, Africa had only three elected leaders—today there are more than 30—and there are no military governments in sub-Saharan Africa. Ten years ago few people—least of all those in the Conservative party—believed that South Africa would emerge from the shadow of apartheid with a tolerant, multi-racial government. Thanks to British intervention, last month the people of Sierra Leone were able to vote in an election free from the threat of violence and intimidation. Had we turned a blind eye, as some suggested, to the plight of that country, its people would now be suffering a fate worse than that of Zimbabwe.
	There has been a breakthrough in the world's largest conflict in the Great Lakes. The Democratic Republic of Congo ceasefire has held for nearly 18 months. There is further to go, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will visit the region between the end of July and the beginning of August. Prompt action by the Government prevented an outbreak of hostilities between Uganda and Rwanda last November. There are promising signs of economic growth throughout Africa. More than 20 African countries achieved a growth rate of 4 per cent. last year. Zimbabwe's decline stands in stark contrast to that better news.
	Within the limits of our influence, we shall do all that we can to promote efforts by the international community, especially leaders of other Governments in the region, to return stability to Zimbabwe. That has been our goal since the beginning of the country's slide into chaos three years ago. Thanks to our diplomacy in the past 12 months, the involvement of the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United States, we have been able to show that the issue is of international concern.
	Human rights abuses and violations of the rule of law have made Zimbabwe an outcast in the region and the wider world, thus belying Mr. Mugabe's claim that his country is a colonial victim. I am confident that the international community will continue to unite in condemning what has happened and working together to ensure that the true voice of the Zimbabwean people is heard and that there is a pathway back to peace and prosperity for that benighted land. 8.11 pm

Menzies Campbell: The collapse of Zimbabwe's economy has been well documented in the debate. However, it is worth reminding ourselves briefly of its scale. As we have heard, inflation is 122 per cent., almost two thirds of the population are unemployed, foreign direct investment has decreased from $430 million in 1998 to $4 million in 2001, and gross domestic product in 2003 is predicted to be half that of 2001. The impact on the people of Zimbabwe is almost incalculable. The economic impact of Mr. Mugabe's policies extends beyond the borders of his country to affect the whole region. It has deeply damaged investment and the tourism on which so many of the surrounding countries' economies depend.
	The ordinary people of Zimbabwe are the victims. A country that was once the granary of southern Africa is reduced to receiving food aid from Britain, the European Union and the United Nations. Today we see the absurdity of farmers being forbidden by law to work their land, while the spectre of famine hangs over the country. We also understand that the food aid that is admitted is used for political purposes. Baroness Amos told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that World Food Programme aid is subject to Government and party distribution networks.
	That underlines many of the points that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made, perhaps more dramatically, when he spoke about the extent to which mere membership, or even suspicion of membership, of the Movement for Democratic Change is sufficient to provoke the most terrible atrocities.

Clare Short: The World Food Programme would not allow food aid to be used for political purposes. Attempts are being made to do that, and we are all struggling to thwart them in the coming crisis. The World Food Programme is not colluding in those efforts. We are all doing what we can to resist the political manipulation of food aid.

Menzies Campbell: I am grateful for that assurance from the Secretary of State, who pays considerable and close attention to such matters.
	The political environment in Zimbabwe is no better. Press freedom has been extinguished, intimidation is commonplace and the Government's opponents are vilified and persecuted. Journalists stand trial under repressive and self-serving legislation, and judges are intimidated and subsequently "persuaded" to leave office. The talks brokered by Nigeria and South Africa between the governing party, ZANU-PF, and the MDC have broken down because ZANU-PF insists that the MDC should abandon its legal challenge to the March election result. It sometimes appears that ZANU-PF is the only institution in the world that believes that that election could legitimately be described as free and fair.
	The internal crisis has the capacity to spill over into the region if citizens of Zimbabwe, displaced by famine or fear, seek refuge in neighbouring countries where they will add to the existing economic and social burdens induced by what we might call the "Mugabe effect".
	In the cloistered calm of the Chamber, we should not forget the countless instances of terror to which many citizens of Zimbabwe have been subject. For example, let us consider the episodes of personal pain as families are forced to shoot their dogs and then their cattle, made to pack their belongings into a couple of suitcases, run the gauntlet of Mr. Mugabe's thugs and so make their escape from land that has been in their family perhaps for generations. Not only the whites suffer the consequences of such actions. Black families who have worked on farms, sometimes for generations, are uprooted and sent on their way so that Mr. Mugabe's political objectives can be achieved.
	I suspect that in 20 years' time, someone reading the two opening speeches would note a difference in flavour but not in substance. The analysis is relatively easy; providing solutions is infinitely more difficult. We have a duty to ourselves, and especially to the citizens of Zimbabwe, to be realistic. The range of action available to us is affected, even circumscribed, by numerous factors.
	The right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned military intervention, although I am not sure about the extent to which he was prepared to pin his colours to that idea. My party has not been slow when we have believed it necessary to urge such intervention, sometimes against the prevailing views of the Labour party and the Conservative party.

Patrick Cormack: Like Thorpe.

Menzies Campbell: Indeed. If Mr. Jeremy Thorpe's suggestions had been executed as swiftly as they might have been, some of the current problems, and especially some of the difficulties that the Labour Government experienced with Mr. Ian Smith, might have been avoided. In Kosovo and Bosnia, Lord Ashdown, as he now is, never displayed any slackness in urging military intervention.
	Before we raise the possibility of military intervention in this case, however, we should ask ourselves several searching questions. The distance between here and Zimbabwe is considerable, and the size of the country is also considerable. We could not look for host nation support from surrounding countries, and I doubt whether we could expect regional political support in the current climate. Could we achieve UN endorsement? Which counties would offer to be allies in any attempt to intervene militarily? Those questions are fundamental, and we should at least ask them and ascertain whether we can provide adequate answers before we discuss military intervention.
	Let us consider whether to broaden economic sanctions. Wholesale sanctions would undoubtedly damage the lives of ordinary people. Some will say that there were sanctions in the days of apartheid—the days of South Africa at its very worst—but there is an important distinction to be drawn there. Throughout that period, the African National Congress was saying to the outside world, "Please impose sanctions." So far, I have heard no suggestion from Mr. Tsvangirai's party, the MDC, that it would wish for a wholesale regime of sanctions to be imposed, because its members understand—current events make this issue all the more acute—that the need for the continuation of humanitarian assistance is fundamental.
	The right hon. Member for Devizes referred to the Commonwealth games, in which I have a passing historical interest. It is worth remembering that when the Gleneagles agreement was implemented and sporting sanctions were applied, it was because those who were representing South Africa were being chosen along racial lines. I have a clear memory of going to compete at the White City stadium, and there were two teams from South Africa: a team of white faces wore green and gold; the team of black faces wore black and gold blazers as an alternative.
	There is no evidence that teams in Zimbabwe are chosen on the basis of colour, and it would not be right to keep the Zimbabwean athletes who have been selected for the Commonwealth games in Manchester away from that opportunity. The opportunity to take part in a Commonwealth games in which the colours are as varied as the countries represented there will perhaps be a more illuminating experience for them than if their country were banned. I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes, however, that there should be no question of any Minister in the Mugabe Government coming to Manchester and seeking to take advantage of the hospitality that the protocols of the Commonwealth games will undoubtedly permit.
	The road to be taken has to be political. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made an interesting point about the need to engage such dominant figures as Nelson Mandela, but there is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that Mr. Mandela and Mr. Mugabe have never seen eye to eye. There are also those who argue that it was not until Mr. Mandela had been replaced by Mr. Mbeki that Mr. Mugabe felt bold enough to embark on some of the conduct that we have seen recently, simply because he feared—and, if I may say so, was intimidated by—Mr. Mandela's robust embrace of a multilateral approach to the problems of South Africa that is a long way from what is currently on offer in Zimbabwe. Archbishop Tutu—another dominating figure—has been unrestrained in his criticism of Mr. Mugabe. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has made an interesting proposition, but we would have to be satisfied in advance that there was at least some hope that influence might be able to be exercised.
	No, it has to be the political road, and that is not glamorous or dynamic; it is painstaking. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was absolutely right to say that we must use every opportunity, and the New Partnership for Africa's Development offers an opportunity to say to the African states that surround Zimbabwe, "You have a duty in this. You have a responsibility not to us, but to your own citizens, who are directly suffering the consequences of Mr. Mugabe's behaviour."
	It is right that we should target more members of ZANU-PF and its associates. There should be selected sanctions, perhaps at lower levels of that part of society over which Mr. Mugabe holds sway. We should be making efforts to seek a settlement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, through the United Nations, and to get the Zimbabwean troops out. What is Zimbabwe using the conflict in the DRC for, if not as a much needed opportunity to obtain illegal foreign exchange? We should be encouraging Nigeria and South Africa to reconvene the talks between ZANU-PF and the MDC, and to get them back on track. We should also do everything that we can through the United Nations to ensure that aid and assistance are depoliticised; I acknowledge the undertakings made by the Secretary of State for International Development in her intervention a moment ago.
	We should also underline—not only for the people of Zimbabwe but for those round about—the fact that land redistribution is a legitimate objective, but it must be carried out in a properly recognised legal framework, with proper compensation, in accordance with the terms of the Abuja agreement. We should also make it clear that the return to full participation in the Commonwealth will not be a formality. It will depend on credible and sustained evidence of a return to—and an intention to maintain, without equivocation—the principles of the Harare declaration.
	We should also use Zimbabwe as an example to promote reform of the procedures of the Commonwealth, so that it will be possible to take much earlier action in future. There is an argument that if the Commonwealth had been able to take earlier action, it might perhaps have been able to stop Mr. Mugabe embarking on this course of action.
	None of those proposals will grab the headlines, but I believe that, taken together and pursued with diligence, they will make a difference, and it is that course of action that Her Majesty's Government ought to be following.

Tony Cunningham: The 2002 presidential election was a symbol of everything that democracy is not. The campaigns leading up to it were marred by political violence. At least 30 members of the Opposition were killed in the first quarter of 2002, and there were many reported cases of members of the Opposition having been attacked and tortured. Fear and intimidation were very much the order of the day. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that it is easy to stand here in the Chamber and describe what is happening in Zimbabwe, but that the reality is absolutely horrific and abhorrent to us.
	The election was deemed neither free nor fair by a broad swath of international opinion, including the Southern African Development Community parliamentary forum and the Commonwealth. It is true that African countries reacted in various ways. Some, including Senegal and Ghana, were critical. Others, such as Tanzania and Namibia, judged the election to be free and fair. I have said before from these Benches that we need all the countries of Africa to join together to isolate this particularly abhorrent regime.
	The poll was characterised by systematic torture, rape and violence, overwhelmingly against the Opposition by the ruling ZANU-PF party. There was manipulation of both the electoral administration and the count, and draconian restrictions on freedom of speech, movement, association and assembly. The Zimbabwe regime attacked the judiciary and harassed the independent media. The pursuit of such actions justified the imposition of sanctions by the European Union and the United States before the election. I think that we all welcomed the decisions made by New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway to follow suit after the election, and the Commonwealth's suspension of Zimbabwe from its councils on 19 March.
	The Foreign Secretary told Parliament that
	"we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy".—[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]
	I believe that he was absolutely and unequivocally right to say that, as I am sure that many hon. Members and colleagues would agree. Indeed, recent developments reveal how the internal situation continues to deteriorate. ZANU-PF has withdrawn from the inter-party dialogue, which is now in limbo. Violence continues against the MDC, particularly in rural areas. Because of the manipulation of the media and the way in which the media is controlled, we can only imagine what is happening in some of those far-flung areas.
	The Zimbabwe Government's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is being used to squeeze the independent press, and an American correspondent working for The Guardian is currently on trial for "publishing a falsehood". Is it not a huge irony that this regime, which has no legitimacy whatever, and has cheated its way to power, is in a position to arrest a journalist for publishing a falsehood?
	The formal economy is the fastest contracting in the world, and Mugabe's land policy is contributing to worsening food shortages As has been said, 6 million people already require food aid. That number could increase to almost 9 million—three quarters of the population—by this autumn, yet the dams are full. Irrigated food production is possible, but Government policy will not allow commercial farmers to plant, and price controls make commercial production uneconomic.
	The British Government are right to declare their commitment to work with the Zimbabwean civil society. Non-governmental organisations and Churches remain under great pressure, and there is evidence that Mugabe may be moving against them in the not too distant future. I therefore pay tribute to the immense courage of the many Churches, church men and women and NGOs who are trying to do what they can to protect innocent civilians in Zimbabwe. We must be alert to the likely politicisation of food aid by ZANU-PF. By avoiding Government channels, we can ensure that food goes to all those in need. We have to ensure that Zimbabwe's Government do not take responsibility for, or any credit whatsoever for, the food aid provided. We must also remind people that it is Mugabe's own policies that are damaging Zimbabwe.
	The British Government's position on the Mugabe Government is well known: we recognise states, not Governments. However, like much of the international community—including the Commonwealth observers—we have made it clear that we do not recognise the outcome of the elections as a free expression of the will of the people of Zimbabwe. Having said that, the Government continue to have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. On 21 March, the Foreign Secretary told the House that he had received no representations to the effect that it would be helpful to reduce, or break off, diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe.
	As I said during today's Foreign Affairs questions, the British high commissioner for Zimbabwe is a constituent of mine; indeed, he grew up in, and went to school in, Workington. Before becoming high commissioner, he was the British ambassador to the former Yugoslavia. He did a superb job there, and he and his staff are doing a fantastic job in Zimbabwe. All hon. Members will doubtless pay tribute to the work that they are doing.
	Britain is far from alone in its opposition to the Zimbabwe regime, but it is a powerful voice within that multilateral foreign policy. The EU's policy echoes that of the UK Government. When the Barcelona European Council convened in March, EU heads of Government agreed that
	"these elections cannot be judged as either free or fair."
	Furthermore, the EU decided to dispatch a high-level troika to confer with countries of the Southern African Development Community region on European concerns about Zimbabwe. On 15 April, the EU decided to impose a moratorium on bilateral ministerial contacts with Zimbabwe until further notice, excluding the conduct of political dialogue to promote democracy, human rights, the rule of law in Zimbabwe, regional security and—of course—humanitarian needs.
	The EU has already imposed targeted sanctions on the Government of Zimbabwe, and at Barcelona it agreed to consider additional targeted measures. I hope that such sanctions are imposed on the Government of Zimbabwe, and do not hurt the Zimbabwean people, who are already suffering enough. Of course, sanctions have to be enforced multilaterally if they are to be effective. The idea that sanctions are not working is nonsense. If they were not hurting the Zimbabwean regime, why would Mugabe and his acolytes be trying so hard to give the impression that they are having no effect?
	EU policy towards Zimbabwe is kept continually under review, and the Foreign Secretary tells me that it will be discussed again in the near future. As has been said, Britain sees a case for extending the list of targeted individuals, but the matter is one for the EU as a whole to decide.
	Ministers agreed that
	"these targeted sanctions are aimed solely at those whom the EU judges to be responsible for the violence, for the violations of human rights and for preventing the holding of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe".
	We have already considered measures such as a travel ban on named members of the regime, freezing their assets, and banning the export of arms and equipment that could be used for repression. Claims that the travel ban is ineffective are unfounded; indeed, it is having a real impact. On three occasions since February, senior Zimbabweans, including Mugabe, have been refused permission to enter the EU.
	Critics point to the presence of Mugabe and his officials in Rome between 10 and 13 June as a mockery of the travel ban. Permission was twice granted for individuals to attend meetings of international bodies in Europe. I shall not rehearse the argument that the Foreign Secretary has already made about Cuba. Fidel Castro banned is banned and subject to sanctions, but he still attends UN meetings in New York. In referring to some 40 visits by Fidel Castro to the USA, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife was about right.

Mark Prisk: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the ability of people such as Olivia Muchena, who was at the heart of agricultural policy, to fly into this country—she was here a couple of weeks ago—flouts the spirit of the ban, if not the letter of it? That is what grates with people in Zimbabwe.

Tony Cunningham: I do not disagree, and it is clear that we must tighten up the regime. However, the policy forms part of an international ban on the travel of Zimbabwean citizens, and I hope that the ban will be extended further.
	No one doubts that the presence of such individuals is extremely distasteful, but as I said, we must accept that EU partners—such as the US and Switzerland, in the case of the UN—are bound by their treaty obligations. We have made it clear that the terms of entry for these individuals should be as restrictive as possible.
	The British Government welcome the decision of the Commonwealth troika to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth for one year, and I pay tribute to South African President Thabo Mbeki, President Olusegun Obasanjo, of Nigeria, and the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, for taking this decision in consultation with Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon. Critics suggested that the group had insufficient powers, but they have been proved wrong. The suspension is evidence of the Commonwealth's ability and willingness to bite when its principles are at stake.
	On the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, disputes over participation in the Commonwealth games are a matter not for the British Government, but for the Commonwealth Games Federation, which will take a decision in consultation with the Commonwealth secretariat. I agree wholeheartedly that the difference between Zimbabwe and South Africa is huge. I hope that the Zimbabwean team will indeed attend the Commonwealth games, but I also hope that the Government will raise the issue of Zimbabwe with Commonwealth leaders and Ministers when they are present in this country.
	EU and Commonwealth measures against Zimbabwe have been clearly and deliberately targeted at those responsible for the policies of the Government of Zimbabwe. As I said, it is not our intention to penalise the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. In fact, the reverse is true, and in that regard I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. Our aim is to help the poor, who should not be hindered. Indeed, this year we expect to provide some £18 million-worth of assistance for Zimbabwe for HlV/AlDS and the rural poor.
	Of course, we keep our aid programme to Zimbabwe under review. Britain has no desire to worsen the economic hardships of the people of Zimbabwe by cutting essential support for the rural poor and victims of AIDS. We sometimes read that AIDS is devastating the poor people of Africa. Well, that disease is not affecting only the poor of Africa. A third of all doctors in Africa are dying from AIDS. It cuts across the social spectrum and is the worst disease that we have seen in my lifetime. We have to look back to plagues in the past to find a comparison.
	We remain committed to helping the poor of Zimbabwe who are suffering from the double impact of economic collapse and HIV/AIDS. Cutting all aid would hurt the very people who have suffered most through economic mismanagement, but would have little impact on the Government. I am proud to remind the House that the UK imposed a national arms embargo on Zimbabwe in May 2000, and the EU followed suit on 18 February 2002. We intend to enforce that embargo rigorously.
	I have outlined some of the policies—which are all carefully devised and responsible—that we have adopted in response to the despicable actions of the Zimbabwean leadership. My notes contain criticisms of the previous Conservative Government for their relationship with the Zimbabwean regime stretching back to 1982–84, when 10,000 people were killed in Matabeleland, the revelations of the "Panorama" programme and details of the visits during the Major years. However, I would prefer it if we all joined together to find solutions to the problems of Zimbabwe, so I will not continue with that part of my speech.
	Mugabe is a man for whom I—and, I am sure, everyone else—feel utter contempt. Our policy is driven not only by a need to stand up to that repressive dictator but by a vision for much-needed structural social change in Zimbabwe. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife mentioned land reform. The idea that is being pushed in Zimbabwe is that we oppose land reform or achieving a fair distribution of land. I remind the House that land reform in Zimbabwe is the bedrock for development. At the time of Zimbabwe's independence in 1980 the best agricultural land was owned mainly by large commercial farms, many of more than 1,000 hectares. Poor families were crowded into less productive communal areas, on land holdings of less than one hectare.
	I support the British Government's belief that land reform is central to Zimbabwe's progress. Britain has been a strong advocate of effective and well managed land reform in Zimbabwe ever since independence. A more equitable distribution of land is essential to reduce poverty and to contribute to the country's long-term economic and social future. To be effective, such reform must be carried out within the rule of law. It must be transparent and fair, and within a well managed economic policy framework that contributes both to poverty reduction and to Zimbabwe's economic prosperity.
	The UK has a long tradition on both sides of the House of supporting land reform in Zimbabwe. I wish to put on record the fact that that support for land reform proposals goes back to the start of independence. Between 1980 and 1985, the UK provided £47 million for land reform, with £20 million as a specific land resettlement grant and £27 million in the form of budgetary support to help to meet the Zimbabwean Government's own contribution to the programme. The land resettlement grant was signed in 1981 and substantially spent by 1988. The UK land resettlement grant for Zimbabwe finally closed in 1996 with—unbelievably—£3 million still unspent.
	The UK Government sought proposals from the Zimbabwean Government on spending the remaining balance. A further technical mission by the Overseas Development Administration in 1996 resulted in new proposals for UK support for land reform. The Zimbabwean Government responded towards the end of 1996, but no agreement was reached before the UK general election on May 1997.
	In September 1998, with UK encouragement, the Zimbabwean Government hosted a land conference in Harare, involving all major international donors and the multilateral institutions. Issues raised in the 1996 ODA report were considered at the conference. The UK participated constructively and endorsed the basic principles of land reform agreed at the conference, as did the Zimbabwean Government. Those principles included the need for transparency, respect for the rule of law, poverty reduction, affordability and consistency with Zimbabwe's wider economic interests. The 1998 conference agreed a two-year inception phase, during which Government resettlement schemes would be tried alongside ideas from the private sector and civil society.
	In May 1999, consultants began work to identify ways in which the UK Government could provide further support for land reform in Zimbabwe. Terms of reference for a follow-up visit were agreed with the Zimbabwean Government in September 1999. Work on UK support for land reform in Zimbabwe was interrupted by the illegal farm occupations and the subsequent violence in the run-up to the 2000 parliamentary elections.
	The United Kingdom remains willing to support a land reform programme that is carried out in accordance with the principles agreed by donors and the Zimbabwe Government in 1998. That is also the position of the broad donor community. It should be pointed out that we are not imposing any new conditions. In the absence of a Government-led programme that we felt able to support, the Department for International Development established in March 2000 a £5 million land resettlement challenge fund to support the private sector and civil society-led resettlement initiatives. Unfortunately, the Zimbabwe Government have not allowed such private sector initiatives to proceed. They have instead pressed ahead with their fast-track resettlement programme, which is totally unacceptable.
	When a group of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers—including those of the UK and Zimbabwe—met in Abuja in September 2001 to discuss Zimbabwe, they agreed again that land reform must be implemented in a fair, just and sustainable manner, in the interests of all the people of Zimbabwe. They agreed that any reform programme should be on the basis of the United Nations development programme proposals of December 2000. The Government of Zimbabwe agreed to honour the principles enshrined in the Harare Commonwealth declaration: to prevent further occupation of farm lands; to restore the rule of law; to take firm action against violence and intimidation; and to honour the freedom of expression.
	At that meeting, the UK reaffirmed its commitment to a significant financial contribution to such a land reform programme and gave an undertaking to encourage other international donors to do the same. In November 2001, the Government of Zimbabwe amended the Land Acquisition Act to allow them to allocate land without giving owners the right to contest the seizures. That contravenes not only the letter, but the spirit of the agreement at Abuja. How on earth can we believe anything that the Zimbabwe Government say when they signed up to an agreement at Abuja and immediately walked away from it? [Interruption.] I am coming towards the end of my speech.
	Regrettably, the credibility of Abuja has been damaged by Zimbabwe's scant regard for its commitments. Since independence, the United Kingdom has provided more than £500 million in bilateral support for development in Zimbabwe, more than any other donor. We should be justifiably proud of that. In total, the wider donor community has provided more than $2 billion in assistance. The UK continues to provide annual support for emergency relief and to alleviate HIV-AIDS suffering. The UK has also contributed to development in Zimbabwe through the international financial institutions. It is interesting to note that the UK funds around 18 per cent. of EU spending.
	In essence, the UK Government have always been open to discussion on the subject of land. They have honoured their Lancaster House commitments and remain willing to contribute to a land reform programme in Zimbabwe that would lead to a sustainable improvement in the lives of Zimbabwe's rural poor.
	It is ultimately the lives of the impoverished citizens of Zimbabwe that are threatened by the tyrannical policies of Robert Mugabe, who has no legitimacy whatever. I am sure that we would all agree that the sooner he goes, the better, not just for Zimbabwe, but for the entire region.

Patrick Cormack: I will not attempt to emulate the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), every word of it read, and bearing all the hallmarks of a Government handout. However, we can completely associate ourselves with his remarks about his constituent, Mr. Donnelly, who has served with enormous distinction. What has been said about him recently is disgraceful, and on that subject the hon. Gentleman carries the House with him.
	I feel extremely embarrassed when I stand to speak in this debate tonight in an almost empty Chamber. I think of those people who voted in the March election by a majority to rid themselves of a tyrant. What would they think if they were here tonight in this Parliament and saw the numbers of people in the Chamber debating their future? It behoves each one of us to reflect on that and to say something about it to those who are not here.
	I am always delighted to see the Secretary of State for International Development on the Front Bench. She knows that I hold her in high regard and we have campaigned together in the past on issues such as Bosnia. I shall always be pleased and proud that we did so. However, I say to her that it is a pity that the Foreign Secretary made his speech and then left the Chamber. It is important that a degree of urgency and importance, currently not apparent, be attached to this grave crisis.
	I have an apology to make on behalf of the other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is looking into the subject of Zimbabwe. Because of a meeting of the Commission of the House of Commons, I could not go with them on a visit to Copenhagen—but for which they would have been here. I will try, somewhat inadequately, to speak on their behalf. The Foreign Affairs Committee has maintained a degree of bipartisanship on all issues of foreign policy, which we should always seek to do. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was right to say that although there was a difference in tone and rhetoric between the parties—and I understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said what he did in his admirable speech—there is not much difference between the two parties on the Front Benches. We certainly share an abhorrence for this distasteful, tyrannical and appalling regime.
	I have an interest to declare, as editor of The House Magazine. I commend to all right hon. and hon. Members a letter that we published this week from Dr. Alan Megahey. I published it because I know him well. He is an old friend of mine—we were schoolmasters together, nearly 40 years ago. Dr. Megahey was for 10 years the rector or headmaster of Peterhouse, which is one of the great schools of Zimbabwe—multi-racial, I hasten to add. He has an intimate knowledge of the country and since he came back—he is now a country parson as well as a scholar—he has maintained his contacts.
	Dr. Megahey wrote a letter to the magazine which I was glad to publish and from which I would like to quote. He says that four years ago he wrote a biography of the great Humphrey Gibbs, the man who stood up against Ian Smith. In that biography was a foreword by one Robert Mugabe, extolling Humphrey Gibbs and describing him as
	"a Christian, a farmer, a political leader and statesman",
	who
	"stood for compassion, humanity, fairness and justice".
	My friend Alan Megahey continues:
	"Mr. Mugabe now presides over a country where racism, inhumanity, corruption and injustice reign. Yet Parliament seems to give scant attention to the scandal of what is happening in a country which has such close links with the United Kingdom."
	I make no criticism of the Secretary of State but would simply say something, through her, to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has made much of his role as international statesman, and in many of the things that he has done and said he has had my total and unqualified support. The way in which he behaved after 11 September last year was exemplary; he behaved as a true Prime Minister of a country facing a crisis. His role in helping to bring about the international coalition will earn him a special place in the history books. However, a Prime Minister who subsequently made the speech that he made to his party conference last year—already quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes—should devote a higher priority to the people of Zimbabwe, and I hope that after tonight's debate he will. In a moment I will make some specific and, I hope, helpful suggestions. However, it behoves the Prime Minister and his Government to attach an importance to this issue that they have not hitherto.
	In his letter, Alan Megahey talks about a report by the Commercial Farmers Union. He refers to the list that it has published of those who have "acquired" farms, which I referred to earlier today at Question Time. He says:
	"These include ministers, MPs . . . the Commissioner of Police, Zimbabwe's permanent representative at the UN, and the President's two sisters and his brother-in-law, among others."
	I will not weary the House with it, but I have here a list of people, which runs to several pages. They are all people of eminence in Zimbabwe—not the downtrodden and deprived, who indeed deserve to be the beneficiaries of land reform—they are the fat cats of a society that is being absolutely crippled by the corruption of its leaders. It is important that we put that on record.
	I do not want to talk for too long about the tactics of the people who go on to those farms, but I offer an example sent to me by Dr. Megahey. He told me of a farm built up over a lifetime's work; the people were forced out and the farmer said that, on the first day of the invasion,
	"We took the following injured workers to hospital . . . Rushion who suffered chest and head wounds from being hit by an axe . . . Herbert who suffered back wounds from being beaten with a fan belt . . . James who had leg wounds from being beaten with a bicycle chain . . . Tawanda . . . bruised ribs from being hit with a fan belt . . . Phinias . . . bruises around his back and waist from a baton".
	The list goes on. Those were not white people being hit by those who were fighting back against the colonial oppressors—they were black farm workers who depended for their livelihood on someone whom one might describe as paternalistic; but that farmer was a good and concerned employer and they wanted to stay with him.
	Such events have been occurring in place after place throughout that beautiful country. As has already been said, what used to be the granary of southern Africa is becoming a wasteland, despoiled by those who rule it.
	It is not only farming that has been affected; my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred to the tourism industry. Zimbabwe is a beautiful country where most of us would love to take our holidays, but how many tourists are queueing up to visit the Victoria falls as I speak?

Mark Hendrick: Like many Conservative speakers, including the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the hon. Gentleman sheds great heat on the issue but very little light on any solutions they would make, if in government, which the Labour Government have not already proposed. Today, we saw a display from the right hon. Member for Devizes that showed no way forward whatever.

Patrick Cormack: I am sorry that I gave way for that rather pointless intervention. I am not generating a lot of heat; I am reasonably calmly retailing some of the facts in the documents before me, because they should be on the record of the House. In a moment, I shall come to what we would do, but perhaps I could be allowed to say one or two more things.
	The tourism industry has been almost destroyed. Wildlife is in danger. On another level, as my friend Dr. Megahey points out,
	"cows, sheep and pigs are being killed (often hideously), sometimes simply for food, often as political warnings by the 'war veterans'".
	The end of my friend's letter is an answer to the hon. Gentleman:
	"But Parliament seems not to be fully informed, or if informed, not concerned. Partial suspension from the Commonwealth and selective sanctions against ministers and their families are mere pin-pricks. Meanwhile the murder and mayhem go on, and people are starving."
	Certainly, it is right that Parliament should be informed and that we should address those things. What are we going to do about them? As I said, I hope that the Government will invest the situation with a new sense of urgency. Of course I accept that there cannot be crude military intervention. That is not practical.
	The House will recall that the BBC is banned from Zimbabwe. When the notable reporter, Mr. Fergal Keane, came before the Foreign Affairs Committee recently, he made it plain that, in his view, we were not attaching a high enough priority to the situation. We should be stepping up broadcasts to people in Zimbabwe, to let them know just how appalling we think Mugabe is and what a terrible tyrant he is.
	The Foreign Secretary should go to South Africa and hold urgent consultations before 22 July, which is a month away. We should not wait until then; the right hon. Gentleman should get on a plane this weekend and go to speak to President Mbeki. He should also go and see former President Mandela.
	I understood why the Secretary of State for International Development had her reservations when my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made his suggestion, but another name has not been brought into play. It is that of a man who did have a good rapport with Robert Mugabe, a man for whom I have enormous affection and respect—the former secretary-general of the Commonwealth, Emeka Anyaoku, who is now in very active retirement. He is president of the Royal Commonwealth Society, and he is often in London. I believe that he is one person who might, just possibly, be able to talk some sense to Mugabe. It is worth trying.
	What we need is a sense of mission and purpose, and the British Government, as well going to South Africa, should convene an urgent conference on Zimbabwe. We should try to act as the catalyst to bring world opinion together in a way that we perhaps have not done at the moment. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the Foreign Secretary's expressions of repugnance. He believes every word that he says—I mean that—but we need urgency. A few initiatives must be taken quickly. We should not wait until 22 July—two days before the House rises for the summer recess—and we should have at least one report from the Foreign Secretary on what his initiatives have achieved before then. I urge the right hon. Lady to talk to him about that.
	If the Foreign Secretary is so committed to other international travel—as the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, seemed to indicate—another senior Minister should be deputed to deal with this issue. It is a crisis of monumental significance. By the end of this year, half the population of 13 million will be in danger of starvation. The right hon. Lady is nodding; she knows that to be true. We have seen the most callous and appalling manipulation of an election in recent years. Mr. Mugabe has put himself in the same league as Milosevic and Saddam Hussein by the way in which he has acted. That is the sort of man we are dealing with.
	The Government have set great store by supporting the International Criminal Court. I happen to be one of those who has some sympathy with the reservations that the Americans have on that. Nevertheless, the Government and the House have approved it, so let the Government say that this is the sort of man who should be indicted before the court and let the people of Zimbabwe be told that. Let us give what moral support we can to those brave people who queued day after day to cast their votes; and a majority of them almost certainly voted against the tyrant.
	It is sad that more hon. Members are not present in the House tonight, but I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes for proposing this subject for debate. I think that the debate should have taken place in Government time, but I shall let that pass—we are debating it—and let us draw comfort from the fact that there is very little difference between those on the two Front Benches and that not a single hon. Member could defend Mugabe's actions with any credibility.
	So let us move forward with greater speed and a greater sense of urgency. Let us take some of these diplomatic initiatives immediately. Let us try to enlist the services of people such as Emeka Anyaoku. Let us do everything that we can to ensure that, before the House rises on 24 July, we have heard a positive report from the Foreign Secretary, standing at the Dispatch Box and reporting on progress achieved.

Hugh Bayley: I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, but I am prompted to do so by a number of hon. Members' contributions and, indeed, by the response to my intervention from the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I am pleased to see that he is still in his place. I congratulate the Opposition on initiating this debate, and I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the horror of the human rights abuses. No hon. Member would disagree about condemning the catalogue of atrocities that was described by the right hon. Gentleman, by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). Nor would I disagree about the need to increase pressure, in any way we can, on President Mugabe and his ZANU-PF co-leaders.
	The right hon. Member for Devizes was correct in telling me that the Conservative Government's failure to respond to Mugabe's repression in Matabeleland in the early 1980s would be no excuse for a failure to respond now, and he was right to raise the issue in the House. While all cases of torture or political killing are equally horrific, however, it is important to recognise the scale of a problem.
	The Human Rights Forum, a Zimbabwean non-governmental organisation, estimates that between January 2001 and 14 May this year 146 people have been killed in political violence. That is a shocking, terrible figure, but it is not the 10,000 who were slaughtered in Matabeleland when Mugabe was trying to make the Zimbabwe leadership a Shona-only leadership rather than the partnership that existed, during the Patriotic Front's struggle for independence, between the Shona ZANU and the Ndebele ZAPU liberation movements.
	What all of us, on both sides of the House, must resolve to do is to work with our friends in Africa in every way we can to stop the death toll from rising into the thousands this time—to stop it from rising, heaven forbid, as high as it did in the early 1980s. The fact remains, nevertheless, that more people will die from hunger in Malawi than will die from political violence in Zimbabwe, more will die from hunger in Zambia than from political violence in Zimbabwe, and more will die from hunger in Zimbabwe itself than from political violence there. A child who dies of hunger, whether south or north of the Zambezi, dies in the same way. We as a Government must respond to a crisis that exists in many southern African countries.
	There is no doubt that Mugabe's land reform programme has made the food shortage crisis in Zimbabwe much worse, but let us not forget that other factors are involved. It would be wrong to blame solely the land reform for the problems of hunger. Poor economic policies are also to blame. The official Government exchange rate—the rate that Ministers pay to obtain foreign exchange with which to buy bottles of whisky—is 50 Zimbabwean dollars to the pound. The street value—the market rate—is 750 Zimbabwean dollars to the pound. That is what others must pay. Those economic policies destroy local production. Who will buy Zimbabwean produce when people have to sell for 10, maybe even 15, times its real price?
	There are bad economic policies, bad agricultural policies, and drought. I returned from Zambia a few years ago with photographs of the Victoria falls. The Shona call them "mosi oi tunya", which means "the mist that thunders". But when I was there, there was no mist, no thunder, and no water. One of my photographs was exhibited in the Upper Waiting Hall a couple of years ago—a photograph of the Victoria falls as a dry cliff. Drought is certainly a problem: we are not talking just about economic policies.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right—there is drought—but drought does not become famine without misgovernment. That was the great finding of Professor Sen. A drought crisis that could be handled otherwise may become a famine owing to misgovernment. In that sense, if people die it is political.

Hugh Bayley: I agree. I have said myself that the policies of Mugabe's Government make the drought much worse. It is not just a Zimbabwean drought, however; it is causing hunger in a number of countries in southern Africa.
	Hunger is also a consequence of the slow progress on land reform since Mugabe came to power. Land reform needs to happen, but it must be based on the rule of law, and not be achieved through violence. Above all, it must distribute land to poor, rural, landless people, and not to the cronies, supporters and leaders of ZANU-PF. It must be backed up by good policies on agriculture and rural development, so that smaller farms will be productive and support people in Zimbabwe.
	Recently, I attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's conference here. I was quizzed in a debate with association members largely from African states about the UK's policy on land reform. We have made a commitment to use development assistance to support land reform if the basic conditions that I set out earlier are met—that is, that land reform benefits poor, landless people rather than Government elites, and that it is provided in a transparent and legally based way.
	Hon. Members of all parties have asked what can be done to change what is happening in Zimbabwe. They want to know how we can ensure free and fair elections, respect for human rights and just land redistribution, and how we can address hunger. I share the Opposition's view that we should toughen sanctions. The right hon. Member for Devizes proposed extending targeted sanctions to the families of top Zimbabwean leaders, and said that they should not be confined to top leaders only. He also suggested that the targeted sanctions be extended to other leaders, especially business leaders who are ZANU-PF supporters.
	I do not think that Government Front-Bench Members would disagree. On 13 June, The Daily Telegraph reported that those proposals were precisely the ones that the Government intended to take to next month's EU meeting. However, we must accept that the proposed changes to the sanctions regime—important but modest as they are—will not change things overnight. We must learn the lessons of history. After Ian Smith made his unilateral declaration of independence, we the British imposed tough sanctions. So why did Smith's illegal regime last so many years? It was able to import what it needed for survival—most importantly, oil—through Mozambique and South Africa. Those neighbouring countries did not impose sanctions.
	The lesson is clear. If the EU is alone in imposing sanctions, they will not be effective. To coin a phrase, we will be waiting years, not months, before the sanctions bite. We need to impose sanctions that are supported by the Southern African Development Community and the neighbouring southern African countries.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was right to say that political action was not particularly glamorous, but that it was necessary. A sanctions policy that is not supported by neighbouring African leaders will not have the effect that we seek. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is also right, and I shall end soon so that he can tell the House more about why the New Partnership for Africa's Development is an important part of the answer.
	The Government must bring more pressure to bear on the Mugabe Government. We need to get famine aid flowing throughout the region, and to get good development assistance working in neighbouring states—in part to show people in Zimbabwe that good development assistance working constructively with other Governments can bring benefits. People in Zimbabwe would then be able to appreciate that a country under a Mugabe-type regime is unable to make the progress possible for other countries.
	In addition, we must seek the resumption of party-to-party talks with the Opposition in Zimbabwe. We must restate our commitment to land reform, according to conditions that are transparent and fair, and which help the poor. We need to investigate where the assets of ZANU-PF are held abroad, and to use our aid to support trade unions, non-governmental organisations and other opposition bodies in Zimbabwe. Those are the things that we need to do to build a coalition that forces the change that Members on both sides of the House want.

Tony Baldry: As is often the case, I am largely in agreement with the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), my colleague on the International Development Committee, although I want to share a few points with the House to put the issue into a slightly broader context.
	Jim Morris, the executive director of the World Food Programme, came to brief the International Development Committee last Monday. I want to read to the House the note of the informal meeting:
	"James Morris gave a brief overview of the situation in Southern Africa. There were 12/13 million people at risk of loss of life in six countries (Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Lesotho, Mozambique and Swaziland). Half of those at risk were in Zimbabwe and a quarter in Malawi. The six countries would need 1.6 million tonnes of grain, which WFP would bring in through Tanzania and Mozambique."
	A rather stark sentence follows:
	"The work was set to become the WFP's largest undertaking."
	I suspect that what we are about to see in southern Africa will dwarf the humanitarian aid effort that has been required in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State for International Development shakes her head, but she can tell us whether that is so when she winds up. With 12 million to 13 million people at risk of loss of life, however, I do not think that the executive director of the World Food Programme would use those words lightly. He went on to tell us:
	"In Zimbabwe the operating environment complicated the problem. Zimbabwe had suffered the worst drought in twenty years. Land reform had seen a weakening of commercial farming and growth in small holdings . . . yields had dropped, mainly because less irrigation was being used. There were 850,000 displaced people within Zimbabwe."
	Interestingly, he added that
	"33,000 tonnes of grain were shipped from the US of which 18,000 was intended for Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe failed to complete the paperwork and it had to be redirected."
	In southern Africa, we are about to face a famine of horrific proportions. Whereas Zimbabwe used to export food to neighbouring countries, the whole of that area now suffers from the prospect of substantial loss of life. That is also against a background of the scourge of AIDS. Let us consider this horrific figure: a quarter of the education budget in Malawi goes to pay for the funerals of teachers who have died from AIDS.
	This is a test not just for us but for the whole of Africa. We have heard a lot about the New Partnership for Africa's Development. When President Mbeki introduced, with President Obasanjo and others, the NEPAD concept in October 2001, he said:
	"We are agreed that we must strengthen democracy on the continent; we must entrench a human rights culture; we must end existing conflicts and prevent new conflicts. We have to deal with corruption and be accountable for all our actions."
	In an article in The Washington Post the other day, President Museveni of Uganda wrote that
	"we Africans must do more to put our own houses in order. Here again, there is a growing consensus between the donor countries and the developing world. President Bush has pledged substantial amounts of new development assistance for countries that are opening their markets, improving governance, and encouraging economic and political freedoms."
	He continued:
	"African leaders agree. In the New Economic Partnership for African Development, a plan endorsed by the Organization of African Unity, African leaders have committed to many of the same principles described by President Bush and have embraced full responsibility for eradicating poverty and placing their countries on a path of sustainable growth".
	As part of NEPAD, African leaders have agreed on a peer review system whereby African countries will judge other African countries—but more than peer review is required.
	NEPAD is being discussed in Canada, and African countries are asking us and other G8 countries for substantially more investment in Africa for infrastructure and other projects. I hope that that will be forthcoming, but there is a quid pro quo. There must be a partnership, and part of that partnership means that African countries collectively will have to exert pressure on those who are failing. I suspect that there is substantially more that those countries could do to bring pressure to bear on Mugabe and on the regime in Zimbabwe. We must make it clear to our colleagues in Africa whom we wish to support that this is a test. We and those who want to support them will watch closely to see how they face up to that test. 9.20 pm

Mark Prisk: I am aware of the pressure of time, so I will try to curtail my remarks.
	This is a timely debate and I join those who congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on calling for it. This week, the Zimbabwean Government are trying to shut down 3,000 family farms and, one week ago, further attempts were made to curtail freedom of speech in that country. The debate also comes at a time when there is growing and worrying evidence of sanctions failing.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I was disappointed by the content and the style of the Foreign Secretary's speech. I hope and am sure that the Secretary of State for International Development will be able to be more comprehensive and thorough.
	The House will be familiar with the fact that the sanctions that are being imposed at present are supposedly smart. Although they may be smart in theory, the way in which they have been implemented has proved to be remarkably dumb. For example, the much-vaunted travel ban is already in tatters.
	Members have already heard how Mr. Mugabe, accompanied by several other Ministers, flew into Rome on 9 June under the guise of attending a United Nations conference. It is ironic that it was a conference on food production. That was not an isolated incident. In late May, Augustine Chihuri, the police commissioner, travelled to Paris for an Interpol conference. Joselyn Chiwenga, the wife of the army chief, has been reported as visiting Britain earlier this month along with three Zimbabwean Ministers. As we have heard, Grace Mugabe has applied for and been granted a tourist visa by the Spanish Government. Worst of all, Olivia Muchena flew into Gatwick recently. She is a member of the ZANU-PF cabinet and the very woman who, as a deputy Minister, was responsible for the fast-track land-grabbing policy that is at the heart of the problem.
	Each incident represents a deliberate flouting of the letter or the spirit of the ban. For those reasons, I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will answer these questions in her winding-up speech. Why are the Government not implementing sanctions against people such as Mrs. Chiwenga? Have Ministers complained to the Spanish Government about the visa for Mrs. Mugabe—and if not, why not? Why has the United Kingdom not included people such as Mrs. Muchena on the list of responsible people, given that she had direct responsibility for the policy that is at the heart of the problem?
	At the beginning of Question Time this afternoon, the Foreign Secretary said that the travel ban policy would be humiliating. In one sense, he is right. It is humiliating for this Government, for the European Union and for the people who are still in Zimbabwe to watch the ban being flouted.
	The Government have made requests for us to come up with a policy for them. Although that is a generous offer, I can only bring some early thoughts to it. I shall briefly summarise them. First, the Government need to implement the sanctions and travel ban effectively. That means stopping existing abuses and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes rightly said, widening the net.
	Secondly, we need to show not just people here but people in Zimbabwe how corrupt the Zimbabwean Government have become. There is a wonderful opportunity for the British, American and European authorities to expose the assets held by ZANU-PF officials abroad. It is vital that we show the Zimbabwean public and the people in neighbouring states how the regime is bleeding Zimbabwe dry.
	Thirdly, we need to encourage both South Africa and Nigeria to become more assertive in their demands. I hope that the Secretary of State will respond to that specific point. Finally, Colonel Gaddafi has been mentioned, and he is the principal provider of oil to Zimbabwe. The Government need to persuade Libya to use its considerable leverage to good effect. Clearly I do not expect the Secretary of State to give an open response to that; I simply ask the Government not merely to note the points raised but to act on them.

Henry Bellingham: This is an important debate. I was disappointed that the Foreign Secretary started his speech with one or two cheap points about why the Leader of the Opposition has not spent more time discussing this subject. There is one simple reason for that: we have an extremely competent shadow Foreign Secretary who has been at the forefront of these issues for the past year. Hardly a day has gone by when he has not mentioned something related to Zimbabwe, and it has been raised a number of times in every Foreign Office Question Time and International Development Question Time. I think I am right in saying that we have had no fewer than three Adjournment debates on the subject, all initiated by Opposition Members. We have not been sitting idly by. The Leader of the Opposition has given us a great deal of encouragement to keep Zimbabwe at the top of the agenda. The Foreign Secretary's comments were cheap indeed.
	We have heard some excellent speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) listed a catalogue of truly wicked incidents. One of the most moving speeches, however, was by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). I am sure he moved all of us when he went right to the heart of the tragedy in that beautiful land.
	We all know that the elections were a farce. Every independent observer condemned them as a sham. They have brought utter shame on the ruling party and are an insult to democracy. Robin and Jennifer Plunkett, a couple who own a farm in Zimbabwe near the Mozambique border, sent me an interesting video, which I passed on to my right hon. Friend, which documents numerous examples of outright intimidation, fraud and ballot rigging. Lest anyone should have any doubts about the reports of those elections in the world media—and there may have been some exaggerations—the video made it clear to me beyond peradventure that they were a total sham.
	No one can accept the result. Mugabe has no legitimacy whatsoever. He is a political pariah who has completely demeaned himself and brought misery to his people who were denied the right to vote him out of office. The man is a wicked tyrant. My right hon. Friend was right when he said that our key priority must be to have a rerun of those elections as soon as possible.
	A number of hon. Members mentioned the appalling famine in southern Africa. The once great country of Zimbabwe was the bread basket of that region and it boasted proudly of its food exports to other countries. However, its food production is now a quarter of what it was 10 years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) explained, and that is mostly attributable to Mugabe's confiscation of productive farms. The pretence of handing the land over to landless peasants has long since disappeared. As several hon. Members have made clear, those farms have been handed to Mugabe's cronies.
	The latest ludicrous order preventing farmers from farming stems from an amendment made last month to the Land Acquisition Act. Those who carry on farming after the 45-day period will either be fined or imprisoned for two years. I gather that an appeal is to go to Zimbabwe's High Court. We must all hope and pray that it is successful.
	In Mugabe's actions we see the politics of a madman. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, the Chairman of the International Development Committee, told the House that there is famine in southern Africa—for example, in Malawi. In an excellent article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph two days ago, the journalist Neil Darbyshire made it crystal clear that the dislocation and ruination of farming in Zimbabwe is part of the cause of the appalling famine in Malawi.
	Action is needed. Last week, the Brussels think tank International Crisis Group forecast increasing unrest and an impending clampdown by Mugabe. The report's author, John Prendergast, said:
	"Britain and the EU talk tough and do nothing: it is a joke."
	It is an extremely unfortunate joke, because the sanctions are not working. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) emphasised, the travel ban is not working. It must be extended across the board to every single ZANU-PF politician and their families.
	My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary made it clear that freezing bank accounts has yielded only a pitiful sum—£76,000 to date. We know that there are millions of pounds in bank accounts around Europe, and I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will explain why more has not been frozen. Why is more not being done in that respect?
	There are strong arguments in favour of other types of action, and I have a suggestion. What about imposing a ban on Air Zimbabwe? The airline is obviously still flying and its aircraft are not being impounded. A ban would not hit the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, but would hit the politicians and Mugabe's cronies. Yes, it would also hit various business men who are doing their level best in difficult circumstances to run their businesses, but surely, when push came to shove, they could make alternative arrangements, probably via South Africa. The symbolism of banning Air Zimbabwe would be extremely powerful. That very suggestion was made by a couple of leading American politicians only two weeks ago.
	There is need for other action, because we are talking about a brazen bully. Mugabe is laughing at the west. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes that there is a crucial role for South Africa and Nigeria to play, especially in putting pressure on Libya and giving Thabo Mbeki more stomach for getting involved. He has to take a position and start taking risks. Politicians have to take risks.
	There is no question of Britain acting alone, but we should in no way be ashamed of our former colonial involvement in Zimbabwe. We should be proud of what was done under British rule. We bequeathed a sense of fair play and justice to that country, and sooner or later its people will say, "Enough is enough." They will rise up and depose the monster. Then, Zimbabwe will again be on the path to peace, prosperity, justice, observance of human rights and, above all, freedom.

Caroline Spelman: The debate did not start off on a good footing. I must register disappointment at the tone adopted by the Foreign Secretary at the beginning. However, the debate has improved as we have gone along and it entirely vindicates the Opposition's choice of the subject for one of our precious Supply days.
	From all parts of the House, we have offered the Government a number of suggestions for measures that might be taken. The most recent suggestion, from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), is not such a bad one. [Interruption.] When the Foreign Secretary is listening, I hope that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will convey to him the large number of suggestions that were made during the debate about what else he might do. The tone adopted by the Foreign Secretary was that of an apologia for inaction. As we heard subsequently, there is a good deal more action that could be taken.
	As many hon. Members said, the situation prevailing under President Mugabe is a tragedy, not just for the people of Zimbabwe, but for the whole region. That fact alone makes the Government's failure to engage more proactively even more lamentable. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, that 13 million people in southern Africa are on the brink of starvation. Zimbabwe, which should be able to export food to feed them, is itself dependent on food aid. If the international community had acted sooner and more decisively, they might not be facing the prospect of hunger and starvation this summer—a situation that will get worse as stocks expire.
	Let us not shy away from the fact that accounts of the unfolding horrors in Zimbabwe, more than any other country in Africa, are turning up in our postbags. Only this morning I received one from a Zimbabwean farmer, begging me to pass on this message to the Government:
	"The situation in Zimbabwe has not been solved and it should not be swept under the carpet. The Zimbabwean people must not be let down by the International Community again".
	I am sure that all hon. Members have received e-mails and letters in similar vein.
	President Mugabe is culpable. His mismanagement of the economy, his violent and illegal theft of people's land, his blatant and sometimes brutal manipulation of the recent elections, and the continued violent oppression of ordinary Zimbabweans have all led a once prosperous country to the brink of ruin. As for Robert Mugabe's stewardship of the economy, we heard various measures of the state of the economy. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit report, it has shrunk by 25 per cent. since 1998, and unemployment is approaching 75 per cent. That is an indictment of any Government's role.
	Scarce food supplies are so expensive that many Zimbabweans cannot afford to buy enough to eat. The UN has estimated that 1.5 million tonnes of food aid will be needed. We welcome the fact that the Government have said that 32 million tonnes of humanitarian relief will be made available to Zimbabwe outside the official channels, but I would like to hear from the Secretary of State for International Development how the safety and security of those official channels can be guaranteed, in the light of the actions of Mugabe and his henchmen.
	The people are not so much living as enduring what their appalling Government have inflicted on them. The country's ability to square up to the drought has been severely affected by President Mugabe's governance. Crops have not been planted, and the yields of those that have been is pitiful. The maize crop is only 20 per cent. of normal, and wheat yields are down 40 or 50 per cent. There has been no maize meal in the shops for six to nine months. People have been getting by on stocks of wheat, but those are about to run out. There is a bread shortage looming, and in a muzzled country, people are afraid to protest.
	Most hon. Members will agree that land reform was needed in Zimbabwe. We had a long history lesson from the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) on how the land reforms came about—so long that our second Back-Bench speaker got in only at 9.15 this evening. The important point is that Britain had a key role in bringing forward those land reforms, and we have a responsibility to see that they are implemented as originally conceived. Yesterday, nearly 3,000 farmers were made to surrender their farms. Any farmer who continues to farm his land faces the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence, and 60 per cent. of the white farmers who were working the land two years ago will have to stop. Zimbabwe was once the bread basket of southern Africa, but it now presents us with a begging bowl.
	Mugabe's response to the crisis has disgraced him even further in the eyes of world. The approach of the Government of Zimbabwe to food assistance has ranged from absolute negligence to outright obstruction. For Mugabe, food is power and a vehicle for political control. At the moment, behind the scenes, a power battle is taking place between Harare and the UN over who controls food distribution in Zimbabwe. The Government of Zimbabwe are using food to reward their allies and punish their enemies. As usual, it is the weakest and most vulnerable who suffer. A fortnight ago, a food distribution agency run by local churches and supported by the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development was closed down by war veterans loyal to Robert Mugabe. Some 40,000 people, many of them children, were denied the food on which they had depended. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred to one school in Zimbabwe whose feeding plan has been altered to keep MDC children from obtaining food.
	When the Government of Zimbabwe are not being obstructive, they are being negligent. According to a written answer I received from the Secretary of State for International Development, there is "no credible national plan" to address food shortages in Zimbabwe. NGOs and agencies that wish to distribute food are hampered by the lack of any coherent plan from a Government who do not care about the plight of their own people. Robert Mugabe is intent on fighting a war not simply against the white minority, but against the whole country, and the world watches him as he does so.
	The Prime Minister is at a meeting of the G8 in Canada in which a topic for discussion will be the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The partnership represents a new model for working in Africa. It is a vehicle to promote just and democratically accountable government in Africa, but one of its first tests is Zimbabwe. I think that I speak for many hon. Members in saying that, at the moment, it is simply not working. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury reminded us of the contribution made by President Museveni to The Washington Post, in which he said that Africa must do its part. As my hon. Friend said, Africa tries, but must do more, to exert pressure.
	Presidents Mbeki of South Africa and Obasanjo of Nigeria are the main architects of NEPAD, but they were too slow to condemn Mugabe and have been ineffective in restraining his political excesses. However, we should at least be grateful that they condemned Mugabe, as other African commentators were considerably more reluctant to do so. That has serious implications for NEPAD. South African election observers initially declared the election result valid. A South African police Minister allegedly tried to persuade observers of the elections in Zimbabwe that they were credible and legitimate. Before the close of voting, the head of the Nigerian observer team said:
	"It will be very difficult for anyone to come and tell us that it was not free and fair".
	The President of Kenya was one of the first to congratulate Robert Mugabe. The poll result was also quickly welcomed by the Presidents of Namibia, Zambia and Tanzania, and the Organisation of African Unity said that the results of the election were
	"transparent, credible, free and fair".
	That is in stark contrast with the way in which the Foreign Secretary described the conduct of the elections to this House on 12 March, when he said:
	"there has been every sign of ZANU-PF-backed violence and intimidation, right up to the close of polling, as well as many reports of irregularities, including a shortage of polling booths in urban areas, and harassment of opposition election agents in rural areas."—[Official Report, 12 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 740.]
	Two days later, he told us:
	"we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy."—[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]
	How could the Foreign Secretary argue in his speech that Mugabe should legitimately be able to attend meetings of the UN if he does not recognise the legitimacy of that Government?
	Since the election, land-grabs have continued and reports of human rights abuses and torture persist. The freedom of the press remains curtailed and the independence of the judiciary suppressed, and the humanitarian situation continues to decline. If NEPAD is a new model of working partnership with Africa, the situation in Zimbabwe leaves me very concerned indeed. If NEPAD is to be seen to be effective, peer pressure must be made to work. At present, there is little evidence of that.
	Many hon. Members share the belief that more concerted action by the Government and the EU could have prevented the situation from getting this far. The EU's travel ban has proved to be humiliating for us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) pointed out. Politics is about perception, and the perception is that that ban is not working.
	The powerful message that the Government should take from the debate is our strong sense that they have failed to act and have allowed a festering situation to go from bad to worse. On 2 October, in his speech to the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister warned that there would be
	"no tolerance of . . . the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe".
	How does the Government's failure to restrain the theft, corruption and intimidation by Robert Mugabe and his associates square with that pledge of zero tolerance?
	I receive countless letters and e-mails from people in Zimbabwe who feel let down and abandoned by Britain. Why, they ask, did Britain allow the situation to get this bad when it was clearly deteriorating under our noses? The Prime Minister wears his passion for Africa on his sleeve, but, when it comes to Zimbabwe, what has that passion achieved? The Government made a great song and dance about having an ethical foreign policy, but their handling of Zimbabwe has destroyed the trust in them to deliver it.

Clare Short: The whole House has agreed that the situation in Zimbabwe is a terrible tragedy. The Mugabe regime is systematically wrecking its economy, brutalising its people, stealing elections and causing enormous suffering to its people. The situation is likely to get much worse in the next few months, and I fear that there will be a very serious famine.
	There is agreement across the House, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, but the difference between us and Her Majesty's official Opposition is that they seem to have forgotten about power so quickly that they think that there is a magic wand that can put the situation right. They believe that Her Majesty's Government have the power to go in anywhere in the world to stop the disgraceful wreckage of an economy such as that carried out by the Mugabe regime, which gets ever worse as time goes by. The UK does not have that power—if only—and we never did.
	The Opposition motion
	"calls on Her Majesty's Government to . . . build an international coalition to apply whatever pressure is necessary . . . to restore democracy in Zimbabwe".
	In fact, we have been doing just that since 1997. I say to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that I have attended to the situation in Zimbabwe weekly—maybe fortnightly—ever since 1997. It has gone from bad to worse. I knew how bad it was in 1997—there was not a genuine programme of land reform—but no one could have predicted this wreckage or that anyone would do that to their country. We tried to take step after step, but it has got worse. There has not been a failure of attention or a failure to take action.
	The truth is that we cannot fix everything across the world in every tragic situation. We have to do all that we can, whenever we can. To pretend that we can fix it when we cannot is dishonest, and is no help to the people of Zimbabwe or anyone else. We have led in building the international coalition that has left Zimbabwe increasingly isolated. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development are no longer disbursing funds in Zimbabwe. Denmark and the Netherlands are withdrawing from it, and most other EU states are providing limited assistance through non- government channels. The European Commission is not disbursing the ninth European development fund programme. Zimbabwe is suspended from the Commonwealth and the elite face sanctions from the EU and the US.
	All that is equivalent to an international coalition putting pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, it has not halted the Mugabe regime's determination to wreck its economy. Even today, when the country faces famine, further action is being taken to prevent farmers from farming. It is unbelievable that any Government, whatever their motivation or lack of decency, would go on wrecking and wrecking like that. The international community is doing all that it can to stop that. We share the Opposition's frustration. We have given Zimbabwe a high priority and we shall continue to do that.
	Remember the Balkans and how long it took to deal with Milosevic. Remember the unilateral declaration of independence. A Labour Government under Harold Wilson were in power then. They were determined to prevent UDI and bring Zimbabwe to democracy, and they were not always fully supported by Conservative Members. In the end, Zimbabwe came to democracy and it will return to it. I fear that that will happen through famine; the rage that it causes in the country will ultimately tear down the regime. There will be horrendous suffering in the process, and we must do everything in our power to relieve it as much as we can.
	As many hon. Members said, the case for land reform in Zimbabwe is overwhelming. I was surprised by the assertion of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) that he was proud of everything that Britain had done in Zimbabwe. The land was stolen from people and UDI was a shame. Land reform must be principled and done according to law; it must prioritise the people who live in communal areas. We have made it clear that we would support that, as would the international community.
	President Mugabe turned against such reform. I believe that he saw power and support for him slipping away in his country. He lost a referendum, and that gave him a shock. He therefore returned to the rhetoric of his heyday, when he was at his most popular and took over the country. What were the two main principles then? Land and beating the UK. He went back to beating that drum, believing that the people of Zimbabwe would support him. There has been complete loss of contact with reality, and all the ensuing consequences.
	The UK has supported the overwhelming case for land reform since independence. We have fulfilled our commitments under the Lancaster House agreement. For most of period since independence, the Conservative party was in government. The UK has disbursed £500 million in bilateral aid and a considerable further sum through the multilateral system.
	However, when President Mugabe started on the wrecking track, he set out to persuade neighbouring African Governments that the UK was resisting justified land reform. He went back to the rhetoric of independence and he fooled neighbouring countries for a time. I believe that that time is coming to an end, but he banged the drum of the independence fight. He was a hero in Africa in those years, and he confused the current debate there by using some of the rhetoric of that struggle to portray the UK as the monster, and suggest that we were committed to the white farmers, not the people of Zimbabwe. The confusion may arise partly because the record shows that that was sometimes true.
	Attitudes are changing. As the Governments of Africa witness what is happening to Zimbabwe, they are no longer confused and they are increasingly moving against Mugabe. However, the approaching tragedy will cause enormous harm to many people.
	I do not have time to respond properly to all the speeches. I understand and share the rage of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who said that he would rule nothing in and nothing out. We are doing everything in our power; all suggestions are welcome. There is no magic wand.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) that we should pay tribute to the brave Zimbabweans who stood for hours, indeed days, to vote in an election when they were being brutalised. We should express our respect for their courage in the circumstances that they faced.
	I emphasise to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that we have given Zimbabwe a high priority. Perhaps we should have debated it in the House more often, but it is difficult to express everything in debates. For example, many organisations are trying to deliver food and they face resistance, but I will not name them in answer to hon. Members' questions because if they appear in Hansard, they will experience even more difficulties in Zimbabwe. However, I shall always write to hon. Members or discuss such questions with them.
	I saw Chief Anyaoku recently. We can contact him again to find whether he believes that he can do anything. Let us be clear: we have tried and tried and tried. Persuading President Mugabe to be rational and care for his people seems impossible. We shall go on trying, but it is difficult. The powers of the International Criminal Court are not retrospective, and therefore not relevant to the subject that we are discussing.
	I stress to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that I shook my head about Afghanistan because the extent of the crisis there is similar. Before 11 September, 5 million people in that country had to be fed daily. The number increased to 6 million, then 7 million. It is now up to 12 million as we turn the country round and get it resettled. I am not, therefore, saying that there is not a monstrous crisis emerging in southern Africa because of the situation in Zimbabwe; it is on a comparable scale.
	As for NEPAD, Zimbabwe must, of course, be discussed in the context of that partnership, but we cannot hold a whole continent—the poorest continent in the world—hostage to the misbehaviour of President Mugabe. We must engage with African Governments who are reformers in driving forward the reform agenda, and try to get them to join in the effort to improve, to put pressure on the Mugabe regime and to take Zimbabwe forward.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk on money freezing, and if the figures are as low as he says, let us look into it. I undertake that I, or another Minister, will write to him on that and on his other suggestion—I know that the USA was considering taking action on Air Zimbabwe. All these actions should be considered, and we will do that.
	I would say to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that I have an office of enormously brave staff in Zimbabwe who are making sure that the food supplied by the UK is not tainted or touched by ZANU-PF thugs who might prevent it from being properly distributed. I want to pay tribute to my staff there, who are working in very difficult circumstances to that end. We are working with the World Food Programme and the UN to ensure that, in trying to face the coming crisis, there will be no political manipulation.
	Let me say, however, that we cannot feed those who will be hungry unless the Mugabe regime permits the private sector to import food. As yet, it will not, and the situation looks appalling. There will be considerable food aid, but trucks will be needed to distribute it, and the trucks are all controlled by the regime. The commercial suppliers are not allowed to import, while the Zimbabwean currency has such a high exchange rate that the costs are prohibitive. The country is facing a drought that will cause a crisis that could easily be managed, but it is potentially a disaster because of the mis-government, the mismanagement of the economy and the grossly mismanaged land reform that has handed farms to fat cats, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire stated.
	If the regime in Zimbabwe cannot be persuaded to allow us to do our work to get food to the hungry, there will be famine conditions, and the population will stream out into the neighbouring countries. I am afraid that that is how the political crisis will be resolved: in an utter tragedy. I am sure that that will bring down the regime, but it will do so in a way that will cause even further suffering to the people of Zimbabwe. This is not a matter of dispute across the House; there is no difference between the Government and the Opposition on this analysis or on our sense of the forthcoming tragedy.
	On top of all that, Zimbabwe has the highest HIV infection rate in Africa. The lives of the poor people of Zimbabwe have been wrecked by the Government who have brought untold harm to them. I give those people an undertaking that we will do all in our power to keep them fed through the coming crisis. We stand ready, when they can find a way of bringing round this regime, to support them in a democratic election and in rebuilding their economy and their country. That beautiful country, which is naturally very fertile, should be the bread basket of this region of Africa, instead of facing this crisis. It will rebuild again—

Caroline Spelman: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Clare Short: Very quickly. There is only one minute left.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) asked the Foreign Secretary whether, given the significance of the region, he would consider a visit to the region. May I extend that question to the Secretary of State?

Clare Short: I have been to the region repeatedly, and I shall go again. For obvious reasons, I am not planning to go to Zimbabwe, or to meet representatives of its Government.
	The population of Zimbabwe is highly educated. They will rebuild; they will come to democracy again. We will be there to try to help people to survive the coming crisis, and to help them to rebuild the country. The way in which President Mugabe has wrecked this prosperous country is truly unforgivable. Zimbabwe should be an engine for development in Africa and should be supplying food to help the region through the drought that it now faces. But there are no magic wands. We cannot fix it just because we hate it. We have to work together to do everything in our power to mobilise international support for action that will bring the crisis to an end, but we have not been successful. No one has been successful as yet, and no one could have envisaged how far President Mugabe would go in wrecking his country. As he brings down his regime, he brings down the whole economy with it.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 361.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House expresses its grave concern at the abuse of human rights and suppression of freedom of expression in Zimbabwe, the increase in poverty arising from the policies of the ruling party, and the impending humanitarian crisis in the country; reaffirms the view that the outcome of the recent Presidential election does not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people; recognises the need for Land Reform but also recognises that this needs to be done responsibly; welcomes the actions taken on Zimbabwe by Her Majesty's Government in co-operation with the EU, the Commonwealth, the US and others; further welcomes the efforts of the Governments of South Africa and Nigeria to facilitate dialogue between ZANU (PF) and MDC, and deplores ZANU (PF)'s withdrawal from these talks; further welcomes the Government's commitment of £32 million to humanitarian relief in Zimbabwe outside official channels; and calls on the Government to encourage other donors to stand by the people of Zimbabwe at this difficult time.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Countryside

That the draft Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.

Investigatory Powers

That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Maintenance of Interception Capability) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft Specialized Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Social Security Amendment (Intercalating Students) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

Insider Dealing

That the draft Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings),
	That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 10th July at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee.- [Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,

National Care Standards Commission

That the National Care Standards Commission (Children's Rights Director) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1250) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

ASTHMA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Anne Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important subject—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is an Adjournment debate taking place. Would hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?

Anne Campbell: Everyone in the House probably knows someone who is badly affected by asthma. Yet in 1950 fewer than one in 50 of the world population had asthma, and before the 1960s, asthma was not regarded as a fatal illness. However, there has been a massive increase since then. The National Asthma Campaign estimates that about 5 million people in the United Kingdom currently receive treatment for asthma, and 8 million people have been diagnosed as having asthma at some point in their lives.
	Over the past quarter of a century, the number of first or new asthma cases has increased considerably. Compared with 25 years ago, the incidence of asthma is three to four times higher in adults and six times higher in children, and it is particularly problematic in the UK. The international study of asthma and allergies in childhood found that the highest number of children reporting asthma symptoms were in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland. Asthma has also become more serious: in the UK, about 1,500 deaths a year have asthma registered as the cause.
	This epidemic imposes a huge cost on the national health service, employers and individuals. The estimated annual cost to our health care system of treating asthma is more than £850 million a year, and those costs account for just one third of the total cost to society. There is also an enormous cost to employers, with more than 18 million working days lost to asthma each year.
	I am pleased to see that The Independent on Sunday is running a campaign to get us to take the disease more seriously and to spend more money on research. I applaud the paper's sentiments and fully support its campaign to reduce traffic and other forms of pollution. However, I shall argue that pollution is a trigger, not a primary cause of asthma. Increasing levels of pollution and ozone affect existing asthmatics but do not create new ones. The medical community still does not know what fundamentally causes the disease.
	It is time we admitted that the current treatments appear to be making us worse, not better, and I want to take a look at the possible causes and treatment of asthma. I shall describe the work done by a Russian doctor, Konstantin Buteyko, in the 1960s; it attempted to explain why people get asthma, and offered a management regime for the disease.
	Dr. Buteyko's methods were practised widely in Russia in the 1980s, and that may still be the case. They spread to Australia when an Australian doctor suffered an asthma attack while visiting Russia. He was admitted to hospital and was taught the Buteyko method for controlling his symptoms. He was so impressed that he took the method back to Australia, and it is now taught there and in New Zealand.
	Buteyko blames hyperventilation for a number of civilisation-induced diseases. We all hyperventilate at times of stress. Indeed, the "fight or flight" response to stress is well documented. It was useful in building energy reserves when stress was likely to be caused by a wild animal or physical attack by an enemy. However, continuous over-breathing is certainly damaging and can cause disease. The importance of correct breathing is acknowledged by the National Asthma Campaign's website, which states:
	"The body needs a balance between carbon dioxide and oxygen. Oxygen is the vital fuel for the body that we get from breathing in the air; carbon dioxide is produced in the body and breathed out. Breathing very rapidly, usually due to being very anxious, can lead to breathing out too much carbon dioxide. This can cause symptoms such as tingling in the fingers and dizziness."
	Buteyko's hypothesis is that it also causes asthma.
	It is not only emotional stress that causes hyperventilation; anyone who is sensitive to environmental factors such as pollution, tobacco smoke, pollens—which are especially noticeable at this time of year—dog and cat hair or house mites, will experience them as stress and can start to hyperventilate as a result. Certain foods also act as a trigger for asthma, notably chocolate, red wine, cheese and even strawberries—in fact, most of the things that I like best.
	Other stress factors are illness, such as chest infections, or exercise. They are all experienced as stress and cause us to breathe too quickly. The effect of that hyperventilation is to increase the amount of oxygen but also to deplete the amount of carbon dioxide, which falls below the level needed for our bodies to function efficiently.
	If carbon dioxide is too low, death will ensue, so when the level falls below a certain limit, the body takes retaliatory action. The smooth muscle surrounding the airways goes into involuntary spasm and tightens, thus preventing people from breathing out and losing more carbon dioxide. At the same time, the airway inner linings become swollen or inflamed and excessive amounts of mucus are produced. That is what many of us who are asthmatics experience as an asthma attack.
	Usually we try to compensate by breathing more, even though that compounds the problem. An asthmatic may also resort to using reliever medication, which can be a life saver—but it works by relaxing the muscles around the airways, allowing the asthmatic to hyperventilate even more and making the problem worse. Buteyko concluded that asthma is actually a defence mechanism, to guard against the fatal loss of carbon dioxide by over-breathing.
	Patients who need reliever medication frequently are usually prescribed steroid preventer medication, which helps to reduce the swelling of the inner airway tube. That works well, but unfortunately, it also depresses the immune system, thus making the patient more vulnerable to coughs, colds and chest infections.
	Buteyko's conclusion was that rather than giving people more drugs, which usually make the condition worse, it would be better to teach them how to breathe correctly. However, it is important to stress that Buteyko practitioners always instruct people to continue using their medication unless it is reduced under the supervision of a GP.
	Asthmatics whose stress response is constantly stimulated by asthma triggers will over-breathe continuously, and in the long term that can be both crippling and life threatening. There is a respiratory centre in the brain that controls our breathing rate, but hidden hyperventilation depletes the body of carbon dioxide and the respiratory centre adjusts to accept those levels as normal.
	The respiratory centre has to maintain what it considers the correct levels of carbon dioxide, so it increases the breathing rate whenever the low level is exceeded. Once bad breathing habits have become established, therefore, the respiratory centre's acceptance of low levels of carbon dioxide perpetuates the problem. The good news is that respiratory centres can be retrained to accept higher levels of carbon dioxide. The aim of the Buteyko technique is gradually to reduce the asthmatic's breathing rate to normal, thus increasing the level of carbon dioxide.
	The technique is simple and can be taught in periods of one and a half hours once a day over four or five days. Some follow-up work is sometimes needed, but the results can be dramatic. There are specially designed exercises for children and their parents; the technique has as much success in children aged over four as it does in adults.
	There are some well documented cases of people who have been helped by the technique. I understand that Jonathan Aitken, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, received treatment from a Buteyko practitioner in London. His asthma was moderately severe, but over a course of consultations and home visits he made a dramatic recovery. A newspaper article quoted him as saying:
	"I have tried plenty of treatments, but this is the only one that has really worked. I think it is a remarkable one that could help many people."
	Con Barrell, a member of the New Zealand All Black team, said after his treatment:
	"I sleep better, my pulse rate has dropped 10–12 beats on a regular basis and I feel well. This has been a big help to me as a professional and personally. I recommend asthmatics try it—things can only get better."
	As someone who has suffered from asthma for 40 years and whose condition would have been previously described as moderate, I have given the Buteyko technique a try myself. I started with a home education pack, as described on the website, www.buteyko.co.nz. Even self-teaching is effective, as by day five I had reduced the number of times I took my reliever medication from four or five times a day to very occasional use. Later I went on a course run by a qualified Buteyko practitioner. As I continued, I discovered to my delight that the asthma symptoms were rapidly reduced. I sleep better and have more energy than I can ever remember.
	What I really regret is that no one told me about the method before. This year I have not suffered from any hay fever, except for a very occasional sneeze, and I wish that someone had told me about the technique some time ago. Alone, I could have saved the national health service hundreds of pounds' worth of medication and myself a lot of needless discomfort. However, the Minister, whom I am happy to welcome to the Front Bench, will be less impressed by anecdote than by medical trials. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to quote so far.
	In referring to the effectiveness of the Buteyko method, the National Asthma Campaign remarks on its website:
	"Lack of published research makes it difficult to reach a conclusion on its effectiveness."
	Buteyko himself conducted a trial in Russia, but the results were considered to be too good, and were not believed for many years.
	In December 1998 a paper by Bowler, Green and Mitchell was published in Alternative Medicine, in Australia. The paper was called "Buteyko breathing techniques in asthma: a blinded randomised trial." The trial compared the effect of the Buteyko breathing technique with a control group in 39 subjects with asthma. The control group was given instruction in general asthma education, relaxation techniques and abdominal breathing exercises. The experimenters looked at medication use, peak flow and quality of life, among other factors.
	After three months, the subjects assigned to the Buteyko group had reduced their reliever medication by 904 micrograms, whereas the control group had a reduction of 57 micrograms—a highly significant result at the 0.2 per cent. level of significance. There was also a reduction in inhaled steroid use by the Buteyko subjects, although the sample sizes were too small for that to be statistically significant.
	Similarly and more importantly, perhaps from my point of view, there was a trend towards greater improvement in the mean quality of life scores of the Buteyko group. I certainly think that if someone can have uninterrupted sleep, feel better and have more energy, it is worth a great deal to that individual.
	I should like to mention Jill McGowan, who was awarded the carer of the year award at the Pride of Britain awards 2002. She knows a lot about asthma because she has the condition herself, and is also a nurse who has worked for many years helping other asthmatics. Like many others who have followed the course, she stopped needing her inhaler within 24 hours.
	Jill is also a university lecturer with the skills to look into the theory behind Buteyko. When she decided that the method had merit, she was amazed to find that it was not more widely researched. She applied to universities for grants to allow her to fund a pilot study. When they turned her down, she sold her house and used the £55,000 proceeds to pay for the study herself.
	The pilot study has shown excellent results—a more than 90 per cent. reduction in reliever medication in the first few weeks. Because of those results, a two-year clinical study of 600 asthma sufferers is under way. Jill is also helping to pay for that work by donating three quarters of her salary. That is real dedication. She hopes that the clinical study will prove the benefits of the Buteyko technique, so that one day it can become available to all on the NHS.
	I very much hope that as a result of this Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend will ask the chief medical officer to examine the available evidence. In particular, I would ask him to consider the preliminary evidence from the Scottish trial, and to have further trials conducted to ascertain the method's efficacy in the UK.
	Let me stress that the technique that I have described does not constitute alternative medicine—a term normally used to describe techniques that sometimes succeed, although no one can quite work out why. The Buteyko technique was derived from research carried out by Konstantin Buteyko, who devised a programme from his theory. The fact that it has worked for me, as well as for many others, must suggest that at the very least it is worth investigating further. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that suggestion.

David Lammy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on securing a debate on such an important subject, and for managing to bring with her my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for Eccles (Ian Stewart), for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That, I think, conveys the seriousness and importance of the topic.
	I must declare an interest. I am a hay fever sufferer, and as a child I suffered from eczema as well. I know that my hon. Friend recognises that the two complaints are related. The subject is dear to her heart, but it is also dear to mine, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to state the Government's policy clearly.
	I know how distressing and debilitating this condition can be for people, their carers and their families. There is currently no cure for asthma, and the cause is not fully understood. Treatment is based on relieving the symptoms, and while that remains the case sufferers are bound to experience some frustration.
	Asthma is the commonest chronic disease in the United Kingdom. It affects about 3.4 million people, and it affects all age groups. It causes breathing difficulties because of inflammation and swelling in the airways, which can be reversed spontaneously or by treatment.
	People may become asthmatic at any time. There are two major types of asthma. There is the allergic version, caused by a bad reaction to allergens such as pollen or dust. It often results in wheezing, and makes life particularly difficult for sufferers at this time of year, especially young people. And there is the non-allergic form, which usually affects people in their 20s and 30s and older people.
	We would welcome a drug-free treatment that was found to improve asthma symptoms as effectively as existing medicines. I think, however, that it would be helpful if I outlined the drug regimes currently used to relieve symptoms before turning to the drug-free methods described by my hon. Friend.
	There are two kinds of asthma medicines, relievers and preventers, which work in very different ways. Relievers help to relieve asthma symptoms when they happen; preventers help to control swelling and inflammation in the airways, and reduce the chance of asthma symptoms. Relievers are safe and effective medicines that patients can take immediately to relieve their symptoms. They quickly relax the muscles surrounding the narrowed airways and allow the airways to open wider, making breathing easier. However, they do not reduce inflammation and swelling in the airways. Preventers control the inflammation and swelling, and stop the airways from being so sensitive. They need to be used daily, and it may be up to two weeks before they are fully effective.
	Although asthma has become more common in recent years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge suggested, treatments have improved. It is important to stress that the number of deaths from this very debilitating disease, which can be fatal for many people, has fallen. Since 1988, in England and Wales, the number of asthma deaths has fallen by about 25 per cent., and in 2000, the latest year for which figures are available, 1,272 died from the condition. In 2000, there were 14 deaths in young people aged 19 and under.
	The management of asthma mainly takes place in the primary care arena. The chronic disease management programme, introduced in July 1993, provides arrangements for health promotion under the GP contract. Participating GPs—around 93 per cent. of the total—receive a fixed annual payment for running organised programmes of care for patients with the complaint.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge spoke about the Buteyko method, which is claimed to be the most effective drug-free approach to the management of asthma and other breathing-related health problems. I commend my hon. Friend on the way in which she illustrated the effects of the approach, and of her personal account of how she has benefited over the past year or so.
	The Buteyko method teaches people under stress to control their symptoms through calm, controlled breathing. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I spent much of this evening reading through the relevant website, and that I have the pages with me. I may well take up some of the practices to help my hay fever, as the website suggests that they may be of assistance.
	If the Buteyko method proved to be as effective as is claimed, it would indeed be a breakthrough in the treatment of asthma. I should like to see robust scientific evidence to support the proposition that treatments such as the Buteyko method are effective in the treatment of asthma and provide long-term benefits for patients. I would expect that any such treatment would have to be as effective as existing drug therapies.
	I know that a pilot study, involving a small number of children, was completed by the university of Aberdeen last year. My hon. Friend mentioned the work in Glasgow, and it is interesting that much of the work on this matter is going on north of the border. I hope that we can make links.
	The children in Aberdeen were placed in a Buteyko group and a control group, respectively, and the aim of the study was to pilot incorporation of Buteyko breathing technique into conventional asthma nurse training and delivery of care. This would be used to decide whether it was worth doing a randomised controlled trial on a larger scale. I understand that the pilot indicated a number of positive trends, and that the Buteyko group showed a halving of sleep disturbance due to wheezing, as well as a reduction in the average daily dose of inhaled steroids. The university has subsequently made an application for major funding from the Scottish Office to enable it to carry out an additional study.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned that Australia and New Zealand have support groups for the Buteyko method, and she noted the work of Jill McGowan. I am interested in Dr. Buteyko's methods and I will ask policy officials to find out more about the Glasgow study. I will make available to the chief medical officer a copy of the record of this debate, and I will suggest that he looks further at the matter.
	The Government are involved in a broad spectrum of research and development work into the disease. It is important to put that in context. The principal body providing Government funding in this area is, of course, the Medical Research Council. The MRC receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Trade and Industry and it spent almost £4 million in 1999–2000 on asthma research.
	It may be that the Buteyko method is worthy of further research. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for research, and clinicians with a special interest in Buteyko are able to submit applications for research funding if they wish. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, however, that it is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe to the individual research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing priorities. That is something that researchers and research users best decide. The MRC will take all these factors into account when it makes its decision on whether it wishes to fund particular research—alongside some that we know is going on and much that my hon. Friend has talked about—into the Buteyko method.
	I should add that a major joint initiative is currently being funded by the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council into air pollution and respiratory disease generally. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about pollution at least adding to the symptoms of the condition. The Department of Health's policy research programme is another source of funding in this area, and it is currently funding three projects investigating the effects of external factors on asthma.
	People with chronic illnesses such as asthma have a number of common requirements including needing to deal with acute attacks, making effective use of medicines and treatment, managing pain, fatigue and depression, and having to cope with other people's responses. Both adults and children with asthma will benefit from the emerging expert patients programme that will—via the NHS—provide training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase has recently begun in selected primary care trusts, with activity to take place on a generic and a disease-specific basis.
	One of those pilots, in the Medway primary care trust in Kent, is proposing to focus self-management activity on people with asthma. The Medway PCT in Kent has a disproportionately high accident and emergency admission rate for asthma in childhood, and considers that many of those admissions might be avoided by improved self-management. The PCT's proposals will include involvement of a project manager for integrated services, health visitors, midwives and asthma management guidelines derived from those produced by the British Thoracic Society. We hope that expert patients can reduce the severity of symptoms, decrease pain and increase quality of life. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that those are important benefits.
	The Department of Health also welcomes the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on inhalers, which it produced earlier this year for children aged between 5 and 15, and in September 2000 for children under the age of 5. We hope that that has relieved the situation for many. We strongly support the guidance that emphasises the importance of ensuring that the device suits the individual needs of the child. I also plan to ask officials to discuss with NICE the feasibility of including the Buteyko method in their technology appraisals programme once we have a little more information about the evidence base.
	In conclusion, I am interested in finding out more about the Buteyko method. I will ask policy officials and our research branch to look at the evidence that we currently have about its effectiveness and, once we know a little more, to discuss whether NICE could look at the feasibility of including it in a future technology appraisal programme. My hon. Friend may also want to consider approaching the Medical Research Council for advice about funding further research.
	I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are serious about improving the prevention and treatment of asthma. Our support for research projects and initiatives, such as the national service frameworks and the expert patients programme, and our willingness to look critically at new treatments, such as the Buteyko method, demonstrate that.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.